Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Leicester Corporation Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Hamilton Burgh Order Confirmation Bill,

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

SINGAPORE BASE.

Lord HENRY CAVENDISHBENTINCK: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the estimated amount of labour required for the construction of the Singapore base; from whence will this labour be obtained; and whether, in view of the shortage of houses in Singapore, he can say what steps will be taken to provide accommodation for the anticipated influx of workers?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): I am not yet in a position to make any definite statement upon this subject, but I can assure my Noble Friend that I shall give every consideration to the provision of necessary accommodation.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is an intimate connection between the shortage of housing and the appalling amount of venereal disease prevalent in Singapore?

Mr. DAVIDSON: Yes, certainly.

ADMIRALTY STAFF.

Colonel DAY: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will give particulars
of the number of persons employed on the Admiralty staff to-day and the corresponding number in 1913, and the total personnel of the Navy on each of these dates?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The Admiralty Staff (Headquarters and Outports) on 31st December, 1913, numbered 5,311. On the 1st March, 1925, the comparable figure was 7,971. The numbers borne on Vote A were 144,419 on the 15th December, 1913, and 100,104 on the 15th March, 1925. As the question appears to assume that the numbers of the personnel of the Fleet are the main factor governing the numbers of Admiralty staff, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to a very full answer exposing this fallacy, which was given to the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Trevelyan Thomson) on the 12th March, 1924, by my predecessor.

COWLEY RECRUITING STATION (COLOURSERGEANT BARNETT).

Captain BOURNE: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any decision has yet been reached in the case of Colour-sergeant Barnett, of the naval recruiting station, Cowley Road, Oxford?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I anticipate that this matter will be decided at an early date.

BATTLESHIP "MONARCH."

Mr. FORREST: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the reasons which induced the Ministry to refuse to allow the obsolete battleship "Monarch" to be broken up, thus providing work; and why, as the Washington Agreement leaves the method of destruction to the different Governments concerned, the Admiralty preferred to sink the vessel?

Mr. DAVIDSON: It was considered necessary to use one of the capital ships due for scrapping under the Washington Treaty for certain important experiments, and the "Monarch" was selected for the purpose. I may add that a large amount of material, the value of which justified the cost of removal, was taken out of the ship before she was sunk.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Could this vessel not have been used to snake a harbour or a breakwater at some port where such a thing is required?

Mr. DAVIDSON: No, I think not.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

INTER-ALLIED MILITARY MISSION OF CONTROL.

Major CRAWFURD: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any decision was arrived at between himself and M. Herriot as to whether the Report of the Inter-Allied Military Mission of Control should be published or not?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The answer is in the negative. M. Herriot and my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, agreed in principle that it would eventually be necessary to publish the exact grounds on which the Allies based their contention that Germany was in serious default over the, military clauses of the Treaty. No decision, however, was leached as to the exact form or date of such publication.

Major CRAWFURD: Will the Government endeavour to see that it is published before any action is taken on the Report of this Commission?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say. Of course, it must be done by agreement with the French Government.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that we have a Treaty obligation to evacuate on a certain date and that we are not yet supplied with the grounds on which we have not done so?

Mr. McNEILL: I do not think that modifies the answer I have given.

BULGARIA (MILITARY FORCES).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether permission has been given to the Bulgarian Government to increase their military forces beyond that to which it was limited in the Peace Treaty?

Mr. McNEILL: No, Sir. The proposal is not to increase the armed forces
of Bulgaria beyond the limit allowed by the Treaty of Neuilly, but to permit the Bulgarian Government to enrol a small proportion of these forces for a provisional term as distinct from the 12 years' basis laid down in the Treaty.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has permission been given to Bulgaria to increase this particular force?

Mr. McNEILL: A temporary permission has been given, but it has to be confirmed by the Council of Ambassadors, and that is under their consideration.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the Government consider in this matter the present state of terror in Bulgaria and the relations between the present Bulgarian Government and their predecessors?

Mr. McNEILL: I will convey that suggestion to my right hon. Friend. Of course, I could not answer the question myself.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

Captain BRASS: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the de jure recognition of the Soviet Government and the entry into possession by their diplomatic representatives of the former Imperial Russian embassy as Chesham House, to what extent, if any, the Soviet Government have handed back the property of His Majesty's Government and the personal belongings of the former Ambassador and diplomatic staff of His Majesty's embassy at Leningrad?

Mr. McNEILL: His Majesty's Government have officially requested the return of this property from the Soviet Government, but the latter have so far not acceded to the request.

BRITISH RELATIONS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in which parts of the world our general relations with the Russian Government are not amicable; and what steps are being taken to remove or reduce causes of friction by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. McNEILL: This subject is too wide to be satisfactorily dealt with by means
of question and answer. It must be reserved for debate on some suitable occasion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any definite area in which there can be friction?

Mr. McNEILL: That is the question on the Paper which I have answered.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: There are only two or three places where we touch Russian territory, and surely that information can be given.

Mr. McNEILL: I have already answered the question.

Mr. MACKINDER: Surely if there is friction, the House is entitled to know without having to wait two or three days.

Mr. MACGUISTEN: Is it not much more important to be friendly with the Russian people who are not at all friendly to the Russian Government, which is not a democratic Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the cost of a passport and tax payable by a British subject visiting France, and the cost of a passport payable by a French subject visiting Great Britain?

Mr. McNEILL: The cost of a British passport is 7s. 6d. on issue. It is valid for five years, and is then renewable for a further period of five years at a cost of 5s., making the total fees 12s. 6d. for the whole period of ten years. The tax payable by British subjects who intend to remain in France more than 14 days, and are, in consequence, required to apply for identity cards, is at present fixed at 14 francs. I am informed that a French passport issued in France costs seven francs and is valid for one year only and not renewable. A French passport issued in this country costs 16s. 10d. and is also valid for one year only and not renewable.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Is there any possibility of reducing the existing charges for passports?

Mr. McNEILL: I could not answer that without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGIER.

Lord COLUM CRICHTON-STUART: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the doubt which has arisen whether under the terms of the Paris Convention regarding Tangier there is any authority to increase by way of allowances or otherwise salaries specified in the Convention, steps will be taken to clear up this point?

Mr. McNEILL: The terms of the Tangier Convention leave no room for doubt on the point. Article36 definitely provides for the modification of the salaries specified in the Convention

Oral Answers to Questions — MEXICO.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make any statement as to the present position between the British Government and Mexico?

Mr. McNEILL: No, Sir; not at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (WAFD PARTY).

Captain WATERHOUSE: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information to show that the Wafd party have recently identified themselves with the Republican cause in Egypt?

Mr. McNEILL: The reply is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Mr. GROVES: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the reluctance on the part of many firms to give documentary evidence to the effect that persons have applied for work and of the consequent hardship upon applicants for unemployment benefit, who have to prove that they are genuinely seeking work when they appear before the local rota committee; and whether he will consider some further Regulation whereby evidence of desire to obtain work will be accepted by the Employment Exchanges, other than a signed statement from the representative of a firm to whom a person has made application?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by me on the 12th March. As has already been pointed out, failure to produce a signed statement from employers is not necessarily regarded by local employment committees as proof that the applicant is not genuinely seeking work, and in the circumstances I do not think that any Regulation of the kind suggested is necessary.

Mr. GROVES: If I can produce evidence affecting my own area, will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter, if I can prove that this question is accepted by the rota committee as being against the applicant?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Certainly.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Springburn last week applicants were being asked to produce evidence of having been looking for work, and will he have that stopped at once? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] You will get to know why before long.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, as a result of the new Regulations which he has issued, 189 cases, representing 547 persons, have been dealt with by the Sheffield Guardians and 42 cases by the Ecclesall Guardians; and whether, if he regards the total number of cases as small, he will ascertain the ages of the cases?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am aware that a number of applicants for benefit in the Sheffield area fail to satisfy the condition regarding payment of contributions, but I do not know how many of them may have applied to the local guardians for relief. Nor have I any information as to the ages of recent applicants for relief. That information would be in the possession of the guardians and not of my Department.

Mr. WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that large numbers of these men are between 50 and 60, and some even over 60 years of age, and is it his intention that they should be sent to the guardians rather than be found work?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I do not think the hon. Member must draw any inference of that kind from what I have said.

Mr. MACKINDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this particular district it is almost impossible for any man, of whatever age, to get any sort of a job?

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that at Southampton, on the 8th February last, a girl of 18 years of age was disqualified for unemployment benefit on the ground that she had refused employment at an isolated military canteen on Salisbury Plain; whether, before the girl was disqualified, careful inquiry was made into the conditions of the employment; and whether, in view of those conditions, he will have the decision in this and similar cases reviewed?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member's question presumably refers to Miss Evelyn May Fulcher, of Southampton, who, on the 5th February, last, refused employment in the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes, Salisbury, and, further, declined to accept domestic training. Her benefit was disallowed by the insurance officer and her appeal to the Court of Referees was dismissed, the Court being of opinion that she was not genuinely seeking work. The Court gave her leave to appeal to the umpire should she desire to do so. I have no authority to intervene.

Mr. KENNEDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is not an isolated case, and that girls of 18 are asked, on seeking work at the canteen, to accept the condition that they are liable to be called upon to serve at any place, whether at home or abroad, to serve on board sea-going ships, or to live under canvas, and does he approve of the non-acceptance of those conditions as a reason for disqualification for benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I know that these conditions have been looked into by the umpire on a previous occasion. If there is anything in them which the hon. Member thinks he would like to call to my notice, so as to make me suggest any alteration or look into the matter further, I will gladly go into it with him.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the employ-
ment of young girls in isolated military canteens of this character is a desirable thing?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot give a general answer in a general way. One has to go into the circumstances in a particular case. The only thing I can say is that on a previous occasion, when the umpire did go into it, he was satisfied in that case that there was really no objection. Each case has to be taken on its merits.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Is it not possible to employ men, at men's wages?

Mr. CECIL WILSON: Does it mean that the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied in sending girls of 18 to isolated military canteens?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member must put down another question.

YOUNG PERSONS.

Colonel DAY: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of youths under 18 years of age in Great Britain who are at present drawing unemployment benefit, and the number under 18 years of age that have never had any employment of any kind through not having been taught any specific trade; and will he instruct the Employment Exchanges throughout the country to make a special effort to place these youths in some trade or employment??

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: On 9th March, the number of boys between the ages of 16 and 18 who had claims to benefit current at Employment Exchanges in Great Britain was 17,981. There are no statistics available to show the number who have never had employment of any kind through not having been taught a specific trade. Every possible effort is already made by the Exchanges to place such boys and other boys on their registers in suitable employment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the jute industry 95 per cent. of the boys are discharged when they reach the age of 18 years; and what steps is he taking through the local Employment Exchanges to deal with that fact?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will certainly look into that case if the hon Member will speak to me about it

Mr. CHARLETON: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the estimated number of males and females, respectively, between the ages of 18 and 25 years of age who are unemployed; and whether, if the information is not now available upon which to base an estimate, he will have such information collected?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In the unemployment statistics which are regularly compiled the ages of claimants are not distinguished, but from a sample analysis based on about 11,000 claimants to unemployment benefit made at the end of November, 1924, it would appear that at that date there were about 181,600 male claimants and 88,800 female claimants, between the ages of 18 and 25 years.

NORTHERN IRELAND DEPARTMENT.

Mr. COMPTON: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour if any arrangements have been made for the taking over by his Department of the Unemployment Insurance Department of the Government of Northern Ireland; and, if so, when the transfer is likely to take place?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. COMPTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that prominent members of the Government of Northern Ireland have made such a statement?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes, I am quite aware of that.

TRAINING.

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the setting up of a scheme of training for the unemployed in their own trades to prevent their losing their skill while out of work?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am afraid it is not practicable to carry out this suggestion.

AGED PERSONS.

Mr. ALBERY: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour if, taking 1922, 1923 and 1924, he will state the number of cases in which extended benefit has been refused to men between 60 and 70 on the ground that, in normal times, employment suited to their capabilities would not be likely to
be available for them; and whether, in any revised scheme of insurance, the Government will take into consideration the hard plight of these aged men thus forced to have recourse to the Poor Law?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No statistics are available to show the number of men between the ages of 60 and 70 who have been refused extended benefit on the ground that employment suited to their capabilities was not likely to be available. As I explained recently, I do not think persons disqualified under this condition can properly be recipients of benefit under an Unemployment Insurance Act.

Mr. ALBERY: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, considering that the employability of the aged is much less than that of the young, the Government will consider the desirability of legislation providing, instead of a standard rate of unemployment benefit, a sliding-scale system of payment, lower in the case of the young and higher with advancing age, with the object of mitigating the hardships resulting from frequent unemployment in the case of older workers?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member is no doubt aware that there are already separate scales of benefit and of contribution for persons under 18 and persons of or above that age respectively. I do not think it would be practicable to have different scales for persons of various ages above the age of 18.

Mr. ALBERY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it possible to issue some instructions in the case of men who are, say, over 60 years of age to the effect that they should be dealt with in a specially lenient manner? These men regard it as a great hardship that young men of 25 should be receiving extended benefit, which has in fact become a dole—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—while they are refused?

MEN RETURNED FROM ABROAD.

Mr. STEPHEN: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour, with reference to a circular sent to the exchanges regarding the payment of standard and extended benefit, respectively, in the case of unemployed men who have returned to this country from one of the Dominions or America, whither they had gone in the hope of
finding employment, if he will say if there is any difference in the conditions governing payment in the case of standard and extended benefit in such cases?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: An insured contributor is not disqualified for standard benefit on account of previous absence abroad if in addition to having a credit of contributions he can satisfy the usual statutory requirement of having paid at least 20 contributions since the beginning of the last preceding insurance year. The special rule applying to extended benefit is explained in a reply given to the hon. Member for Dundee on 4th March, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. STEPHEN: Has there been a special circular sent out to the Committees dealing with these cases?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes, Sir; there has been a circular with respect to extended benefit so far as I—but, perhaps I had better verify it—to the best of my recollection, a circular has been sent out, or suggestions made, in repard to extended benefit in relation to those who have returned from abroad. That class of case has never yet been settled, and some general rule seemed to be necessary for the guidance of the Committees.

Mr. STEPHEN: Would the right hon. Gentleman see that a copy of the circular, or instructions, is placed in the Library?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I shall be very glad to do so, and to send the hon. Gentleman a copy.

Mr. HARDIE: Could a copy be sent to each member of the local Committees?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, not to each member, because that would mean an incredibly large post; but the local Committees are made well aware of these documents, so that any member of a Committee may have a copy placed at his disposal.

ALIENS.

Captain T. J. O'CONNOR: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the number of aliens who are at present drawing unemployment insurance relief; and whether he proposes to discontinue the practice of paying such relief to aliens?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Statistics are not regularly compiled in respect of the number of aliens in receipt of unemployment benefit, but the results of a special analysis of claimants to benefit in November, 1924, indicate that of the 1,090,373 claimants at that date about 3,000 were aliens. I have no authority to refuse benefit to unemployed aliens who satisfy the conditions imposed by the Unemployment Insurance Acts.

Captain O'CONNOR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that in view of the congested state of the labour market it is time he refused to encourage the immigration of aliens into this country where they can come and live on the dole?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARCOS, LIMITED.

Mr. GOODMAN ROBERTS: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the firm of Arcos, Limited, Soviet House, Moor gate Street, E.C., is on the King's Roll; and, if so, on what date it was placed on the Roll?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: This firm is not on the King's Roll.

Mr. ROBERTS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that until it is on the Kings Roll, no Government contracts will be made with it?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not sure how much business is actually being done with Arcos at present, but I will inquire.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR SERVICES.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will consider the establishing of further municipal or civil landing places for aircraft to encourage civil aviation?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major Sir Philip Sassoon): It is not desirable, for financial and other reasons, to provide Government civil aerodromes in advance of the need for them, but the attention of local authorities has been drawn to the desirability of making provision for aerodromes, particularly
in connection with town planning schemes.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will arrange for British Air Attaches to visit our aircraft manufacturers before they take up their posts?

Sir P. SASSOON: Arrangements are always made to ensure that officers appointed as air attaches are conversant with the various types of both Service and civil aircraft. Visits to aircraft factories are arranged when considered necessary.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what facilities are offered to foreign pilots to train with our Air Force with a view of encouraging the purchase of British aircraft manufactures?

Sir P. SASSOON: The resources of the Air Force are available for the training of foreign officers as far as Service requirements permit, and it is the policy of the Air Ministry to encourage the attachment of such officers in suitable cases.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in countries where they encourage foreign pilots to come a great deal of trade results?

Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, and that is one of the reasons why we encourage foreign pilots to come whenever they can.

Oral Answers to Questions — CROWN PROCEEDINGS COMMITTEE

Mr. SANDEMAN ALLEN: 39.
asked the Attorney-General how often the Crown Proceedings Committee has met; when it held its last meeting; and when the Report, which the late Attorney-General stated on the 31st July last was expected at no distant date, will be issued?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): The Committee, or its Sub-committee, have met 36 times. The last meeting of the Sub-committee was on Thursday, 26th February. There have, in addition, been numerous conferences and consultations of an informal nature between members of the Committee dealing with the particular branches of the subject. I cannot say
when the Report will be ready for presentation.

Mr. ALLEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this delay is causing a great deal of anxiety in commercial circles?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No, Sir, and I should be very surprised to find that it is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — KING'S ROLL.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour how many municipal bodies, companies, firms, and persons have applied to be put on the King's Roll since the rejection of the County of London Electric Supply Bill; and how many such applications have been accepted?

Mr. NUTTALL: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of municipal corporations in England that have failed to sign the King's Roll, and the number that have signed the said Roll since 1st March, 1925?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: King's Roll records are kept locally. I am having inquiries made, and will communicate the result to the hon. Members.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour how many firms engaged on Government contracts are not yet on the King's Roll?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will endeavour to obtain this information from the Government Contracting Departments and will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORMAL WORKING WEEK, UNITED STATES.

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the length of the normal working week in the cotton, engineering, and iron and steel trades, respectively, in the United States?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: According to information published by the United States Bureau of Labour statistics, the
average full time hours per week worked in the United States are 52.4 in the cotton industry, 51.6 in engineering and 54.8 in the iron and steel trade. I should add that the information as regards cotton and engineering relates to the years 1922 and 1923 respectively.

Mr. J. BAKER: Could the right hon. Gentleman give the House the definite date of that information in regard to the iron and steel trades?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think it is 1924 for iron and steel; but I will make quite certain and send it to my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD PRESERVATIVES.

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 41.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that in the draft Rules of 17th March, 1925, on preservatives in foods there is a list of prohibited coal-tar products which gives the impression that all other such products may be used; and will he take steps to lay down the quantities of lead and arsenic permitted in such compounds, and thus carry out the recommendations of the Committee?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): Yes, Sir. The effect of the Regulations, as drafted, is that all coal-tar colours which are not included in the Schedule may be used in food until they are shown to be injurious to health. Although lead and arsenic are occasionally present in coal-tar products, my right hon. Friend is advised that the percentage of those substances liable to be introduced into foodstuffs through this medium is so minute that it is unnecessary to extend the scope of the Regulations in the direction suggested.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Has the Parliamentary Secretary received any protests against these Regulations?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir. We have received protests and assents.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Shall we have any opportunity to debate this?

Sir K. WOOD: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman should give notice of that question.

Mr. GERALD HURST: 50.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the alarm occasioned to the confectionery, bakery, and allied trades by the draft Regulations as to the use of preservatives and colouring matter in articles of food; whether he is aware of the strong scientific evidence published against prohibition of boracic acid and against the new Rules as to liquid eggs, butter, margarine, and cream; and if the Regulations can be held up until the House can consider their propriety?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has received representations from these trades and I am arranging to meet a deputation. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the scientific evidence regarding the effect of boric acid was thoroughly considered by the Departmental Committee on Preservatives in Food. My right hon. Friend is desirous of giving the fullest consideration to the views of all parties concerned, and thinks the hon. Member will agree that that end will be secured by the discussion of the draft with representatives of trade bodies and others before the regulations are made and laid before Parliament.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that last week a member who got a tin of boric-treated eggs into the House afterwards put it on a cast-iron umbrella-stand downstairs, and that it is eating the cast-iron away?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir; but I will inspect it.

Major CRAWFURD: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the views of the representatives of medical opinion are taken?

Sir K. WOOD: I will consider that.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.

Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWN: 42.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the resolution of the Council of Agriculture for England urging immediate action by the Government to provide a large number of houses for agricultural workers in rural districts, as a national social question of first-class
urgency and importance, he will bring in early legislation on the subject, or whether he will give special facilities for a Second Reading of the Rural Cottages Bill now before the House?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is fully alive to the importance of the rural housing problem, and he is giving the matter his close attention. He cannot, however, promise early legislation on the subject, and does not think that it will be practicable to give the facilities for which my hon. and gallant Friend asks.

Oral Answers to Questions — CASUAL WARDS.

Captain BOURNE: 43.
asked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that new Regulations for the casual wards have been promised for more than a year and that drafts have been submitted to some boards of guardians or other public bodies, he will now publish a draft of the proposed Regulations so that Members of Parliament and others may have an opportunity of seeing them?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has authorised the issue of the new Regulations, which will come into force very shortly. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the Regulations and of the Circular which will accompany them.

Captain BOURNE: 44.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will urge the guardians of wards, where the use of planks as sleeping accommodation for women in casual wards is at present provided, to give up the use of plank beds and to provide more suitable accommodation?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATUTE LAW (CONSOLIDATION).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he is prepared to appoint a Committee to examine the general question of consolidating legislation, in view of the grave inconveniences which arise from the present involved position of the law in relation to many matters?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): There is already a Committee, namely, the Statute Law Committee, which considers and makes recommenda
tions as to what consolidation legislation it is advisable to undertake. I may inform my hon. Frind that 13 Consolidation Bills have already been introduced this Session and are now under the consideration of Parliament.

Mr. WILLIAMS: 46.
also asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of all amending Bills in future taking the form of consolidating Bills in order to avoid the disadvantages of legislation by reference?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is not possible. whenever a Bill is introduced amending a particular branch of the law, to reproduce the whole of the Statute Law on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORIES BILL.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to pass the Factories Bill into law this Session?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have been asked to reply. I have still further interviews and consultations before I can submit the proposed Bill to the Cabinet, but I hope to do so very shortly.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: If the Minister is going to pass this Bill into law this Session, why does he make such heavy weather of it? Why does he not adopt the Bill of his Conservative predecessor in office, or is the present First Lord of the Admiralty considered to be too Socialistic for the present Home Secretary?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Oral Answers to Questions — SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND.

Mr. COUPER: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet reached a decision with reference to raising the status of the Secretary for Scotland; and when will he be in a position to announce it?

The PRIME MINISTER: As I have already announced, this question is being examined, and I hope to be in a position to make a statement during the Session.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while there may be general agreement about raising the status of the Secretary for Scotland, there will not be the same general agreement about raising his salary?

The PRIME MINISTER: I was not aware of that, but I am not at all surprised.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.

Captain FRASER: 49.
asked the Prime Minister if he will give the House an opportunity of deciding the desirability of giving permission to the British Broadcasting Company for the broadcasting of the forthcoming speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the introduction of the Budget; and if he will also consider the whole question of permitting certain proceedings of this House to be broadcast?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. But I think the time is come when the whole question should be considered, and for that purpose I am thinking of setting up a Select Committee of both Houses.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making representations, with a view to reducing the price of the OFFICIAL REPORT, if we are not going to broadcast?

INTERFERENCE.

Captain FRASER: 61.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that a number of listeners to wireless programmes have much of their pleasure destroyed by interference; and if he will utilise a portion of the profit which he holds as a result of his Department's share of broadcast licence fees for the purpose of causing a full administrative and technical inquiry into all interference with broadcasting caused by service, commercial, and other transmissions, or electro-magnetic radiations of the frequencies used for broadcasting, and will cause such research as is necessary to be undertaken for the proper prosecution of such an inquiry?

The POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The question of interference with broadcast
programmes has received and is still receiving close consideration, and much improvement has been effected as regards service and commercial transmissions. With regard to interference caused by electro-magnetic radiations, I am always willing, when complaint is made, to give advice and to use such influence as I possess to secure an abatement of the nuisance. I do not think, however, that the time is ripe for such an inquiry as that suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Captain FRASER: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that he will not utilise any portion of these profits, which rightly belong to listeners, by way of reducing taxation?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That is obviously a question which should be addressed to another Minister.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Would not the newly-formed Wireless League be an excellent body to take up this subject?

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: 55.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will consider the advisability of inviting representatives from the other groups of opinion upon the subject of electric power supply in Great Britain to consult with him, as well as those representatives who at the present time are advising him upon this subject from certain view points of the problem?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): I have nothing to add to the reply which was given to the hon. Member for Newport on the 24th February, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Does the hon. and gallant Member realise that there are five schools of thought in this country with regard to power production, and that if he is taking his guidance from one of these only he will be acting on only partial information?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: The Minister has received advice from all quarters. What advice he will take it is not for me to say.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Is it not the fact that he is taking such advice from one school of thought only?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I am not aware of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROADS (RUBBER PAVING).

Sir W. SUGDEN: 56.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is prepared to call a conference of experts for the purpose of considering the practical utilisation of compound rubber-paving on certain roads and crossings in order to obviate the damage to valuable modern, as well as ancient, buildings caused by heavy swift-moving commercial vehicles passing along such roads and crossings now built with either concrete or granite facings?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: As the staff of the Ministry keep under constant observation the experiments that are being made in the utilisation of rubber as a paving material, it is not considered necessary to call the suggested conference.

MOTOR SPEED LIMIT.

Captain BRASS: 57.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the general dissatisfaction caused by the continuance in force of an obsolete speed limit of 20 miles per hour for all motor vehicles, he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to alter or abolish this limit?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: This matter is under consideration it connection with the proposed legislation with regard to road vehicles.

Captain BRASS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that many people are now being prosecuted for exceeding this obsolete speed limit; and may I also ask when it is proposed to bring in this Bill?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I am aware that a number of people are being prosecuted. I cannot guarantee Parliamentary time for the Bill, but it will be introduced as soon as possible.

Mr. HARDIE: Has the Minister of Transport had his attention called to what
is taking place in Glasgow with respect to postal vans, and can he take steps to prevent his murdering of children in the streets by postal vans?

MOTOR DRIVERS (TESTS).

Captain BRASS: 58.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that a large number of motor accidents occur through the inexperience and incompetence of the drivers, he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to make it compulsory for all prospective drivers to pass a driving test and an oral examination on the rules of the road before a licence to drive is granted?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I would refer my hon. and gallant Fiend to the answer which was given on the 18th February to the hon. Member for the Hallam Division (Sir F. H. Sykes), of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISH SUPPLIES.

Sir W. SUGDEN: 59.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will call a conference of those concerned in the fishing industry on the north-east coast to regulate the movements of trawler fleets to prevent famine and glut of supplies which sometimes now obtain?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Edward Wood): Fluctuations in the supply of fish are almost entirely caused by the combined weather conditions on the various trawling grounds extending from the Murman Coast of Russia and Iceland in the north to the Coast of Morocco in the south, and do not depend upon the number of trawlers at sea at a given time—which, in fact, varies very little. In the circumstances, I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by the conference proposed.

Sir W. SUGDEN: But is it not the fact that the question of loading is a very important one in respect of this class of fishing, equally as important as the one of incoming trawlers?

Mr. WOOD: I can assure my hon. Friend that I am entirely alive to the question, but I am in doubt whether a solution could be furthered by a conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — VAUXHALL COLLIERY, RUABON.

Mr. EVERARD: 60.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether the Vauxhall Colliery, near Ruabon, has been re-opened; whether he has any information as to the number of men employed; and whether the usual hours of employment and rates of wages are operating in that colliery?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane-Fox): Yes, Sir; I understand that this colliery has been re-opened. It normally employs about 600 men. As regards the last part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on the 17th March to the hon. Member for Moseley.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (TROOP MOVEMENTS).

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether a cavalry regiment and certain armoured cars have been moved recently from Egypt to Palestine; and, if so, whether these movements form part of the normal military arrangements or are due to any other reason?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): A cavalry regiment which was sent to Egypt from Palestine in December last, when the situation in Egypt was disturbed, has now returned to its normal peace station in Palestine. There has been no transfer of armoured cars between Egypt and Palestine.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (COMMERCIAL TREATIES).

Sir FREDRICWISE: 63.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department with what countries the German Republic has negotiated commercial treaties?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): If my hon. Friend will permit me, I will have circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the countries to which he refers.

Following is the list promised:

So far as I am aware, the countries with which the German Republic has negotiated commercial treaties or other arrangements (some of which are, how
ever, not yet in force) are the following: Austria, Bulgaria, Bolivia, Czechslovakia, Esthonia, Finland, the United Kingdom, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Nicaragua, Netherlands, Portugal, S.H.S. State, Siam, Spain, Soviet Union, Switzerland and the United States.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTILLERY IMPORTS, NORWAY.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir EDWARD GRIGG: 64.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that French distillers are allowed to import into Norway large quantities of their products, whereas British distillers are completely shut out from the Norwegian market; and what steps are His Majesty's Government taking to put an end to this violation of the most favoured-nation Clause of the Commercial Treaty in force between Norway and Great Britain?

Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir; the President of the Board of Trade is aware of the position, which is as stated in the first part of the hon. Member's question. As regards the second part, the hon. Member can rest assured that His Majesty's Government are giving the matter their close attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

PUBLIC RECORDS, EDINBURGH.

Captain BENN: 66.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the resolution of the Edinburgh Town Council to the effect that the office of the deputy clerk register should now be filled, that the public records of Scotland should remain in the country, and that the deputy clerk register should have jurisdiction over local records where this is desirable, with the object of securing their preservation and accessibility to the public; and whether he is able to announce any official action in connection with it?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I have received a copy of the resolution which the Corporation passed on these subjects on the 9th March. As I stated in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member on the 17th February, the idea of removing any documents from the Record Office in
Edinburgh has never been contemplated I am not in a position at present to make any statement in regard to the other points referred to in the question, except that I am in course of appointing a Committee to inquire and report on the question of the Sheriff Court Records.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this office is one of great antiquity and dignity, and that a decision might by this time have been expected as to whether the office is to be continued or the reverse?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I would like to emphasise that there has never been any intention of discontinuing the office.

Sir H. CRAIK: What about the officials?

Sir J. GILMOUR: That is entirely another question.

Captain BENN: Can the Secretary for Scotland say whether the Committee appointed is going to decide if there is to be an appointment of a deputy clerk register, or whether that is outside the terms of reference?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir; what the Committee has to inquire into is the case of the records in sheriff courts in various parts of the country.

Captain BENN: When will the right hon. Gentleman appoint a deputy clerk register?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As soon as a definite decision has been arrived at.

Sir H. CRAIK: Will the Committee consider the very important question of the continuance of this ancient office?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Committee will be appointed to inquire into the circumstances of the records of the sheriff courts.

Sir H. CRAIK: Who is going to decide with regard to the continuance of this office?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Government.

Sir H. CRAIK: When?

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTIONS (USE OF VEHICLES).

Mr. THURTLE: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the
proposed conference on franchise reform will consider the question of prohibiting the use of vehicles for the purpose of conveying electors to the poll, except in so far as the sick and infirm are concerned.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I regret that I cannot make any statement at present as to the scope of the conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — KIDNAPPING.

Mr. THURTLE: 68.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the recent case of kidnapping of a Labour speaker, he can give the House an assurance that he is taking all possible steps to prevent similar outrages being perpetrated in the future?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the Home Secretary aware that many of us have received threatening letters?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sure I am echoing the opinion of the whole House when I express the hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not be kidnapped.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Might we have police protection?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I shall be glad to consider providing police protection for the right hon. Gentleman, should he so desire.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOBELIN TAPESTRIES.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 69.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Gobelin tapestries are still held as security for any Austrian loan?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): No, Sir The loans to which the Gobelin tapestries were assigned as security were converted into guaranteed Austrian loan on the issue of that loan in June, 1923, and these tapestries are not now held as security for any Austrian loan.

GERMAN RAILWAYS (CREDIT).

Sir F. WISE: 70.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any information to the effect that the German railways have been given a credit in New York?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I have been asked to answer this question. Full statements have appeared in the German Press to the effect that an agreement has been concluded between the Deutsche Reichsbahn-Gesellschaft and a consortium of British and American bankers for a revolving credit of 15,000,000 dollars at 7 per cent., the credit to be available up to the 31st January, 1926.

Sir F. WISE: Can the hon. Gentleman state what is the position of the railway bondholders whose bonds were issued under the Dawes Report? Are they a first charge?

Mr. SAMUEL: I do not think the two questions are cognate. So far as I understand it, the rolling-credit loan to be issued by the consortium of banks is for equipment and other similar things. I do not think the new loan touches any details of the Dawes plan, but I shall be glad to go into the matter for my hon. Friend.

Sir F. WISE: I do not mind so long as there is a first charge.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 72.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now give the terms of the proposed agreement for the extension of the Imperial settlement in Western Australia?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): No, Sir. The agreement is dependent on that under under consideration with the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia which is being negotiated.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOSUL.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in the settlement of the Mosul frontier between His Majesty's Government and the government of the Turkish Republic; and what is the present position of negotiations?

Mr. McNEILL: The Commission appointed by the League of Nations to investigate the Iraq frontier question, having completed its inquiries on the
spot, is about to return to Europe. The President of the Commission has informed the Secretary-General of the League that he hopes to be able to present his report to the Council at the June session.

Oral Answers to Questions — KURDISTAN.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he now has any information about the rising in Kurdistan; what is the present position; and what effect this is having on the peace and tranquillity of the vilayet of Mosul?

Mr. McNEILL: I am still unable to give the hon. and gallant Member any authoritative information about the present position in Kurdistan, as the news issued by the Turkish authorities is scanty. But I gather that, while the insurgents have made no progress, a considerable Turkish military force is being concentrated in the disaffected districts. His Majesty's Government have no information to show that the vilayet of Mosul is in any way affected by these events.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH POLITICAL PRISONERS.

Mr. LEES SMITH: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether any changes have been made in the last few days in the arrangements with regard to the political prisoners from Northern Ireland imprisoned in this country?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir.

Mr. SMITH: In view of the fact, of which I think the right hon. Gentleman is aware, that arrangements are being made for one of these prisoners to sue for a writ of habeas corpus in order to contest the legality of his detention, can we be assured that the other prisoners will be kept in their present position until this legal issue is determined?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no intention at all of altering the position of any of the prisoners The answer is quite categorical: no arrangements have been made for any alteration. I have no intention of making any alteration, and will not do so without communicating with the House.

NOTICES OF MOTION.

SECONDARY EDUCATION.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to secondary education, and move a Resolution.

GARDEN CITY SCHEME.

Major KINDERSLEY: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the garden city scheme and the housing problem, and move a Resolution.

POOR PERSONS (LEGAL AID).

Mr. BURMAN: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the question of providing legal aid for the poor, and move a Resolution.

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.

Mr. ERSKINE: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the dole as at present administered, and its relation to race degeneracy, and move a Resolution.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. Is it not necessary to use Parliamentary expressions in Notices of Motion, and is the word "dole" a Parliamentary expression?

Mr. SPEAKER: It will be my duty to edit the Notices of Motion when they come to the Table.

LICENSING ACT (1921) AMENDMENT.

Mr. REMER: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give additional powers to licensing magistrates as to hours of opening licensed premises.
I hope the House will not think that this is a Bill by means of which I am trying to light the fires of controversy and promote disputes between "pussyfoots" and the brewing interest. I think it is the duty of hon. Members as far as possible to avoid controversy, and this Bill, which I am asking leave to introduce, is quite a mild and innocuous Bill. In fact, I think it might be described as a milk-and-water Bill; it has very little
relation to the question of the desirability or otherwise of beer or whisky. The Bill stands by the compromise which was made in 1921, but the Bill of 1921, as hon. Members who were in the House at the time will recollect, was passed in the early hours of the morning, when Members of the House have not, that clear vision which they have at other times, and the object of the present Bill is to clear away some of the anomalies that undoubtedly do exist.
To mention one or two of them, in Oxford Street, in London, there is an anomaly which must be obvious to every one of us, where the licensed houses on one side of the street have to close an hour before those on the other side. We know very well that Frascati's Restaurant, the Holborn Restaurant, and the Connaught Rooms have great difficulty in carrying on their business in competition with other restaurants because of the anomaly which exists in that part of London. Then I will ask the House to turn its consideration away from, the gay life of the West End of London, and look at an anomaly which exists in the case of a lonely hotel in my constituency, 1,500 feet above sea level. It is the "Cat and Fiddle" Hotel, near Buxton, and may be known to some hon. Members. It has the reputation of being the highest hotel in England. That hotel is in a licensing area which includes a large industrial district 12 miles away, and the licensing authority have to fix times suitable for the industrial area. The hotel is open from 12 till half-past two, and from six till 10.30 at night. I put it to the House that no one in their senses would go to the top of a mountain—for this hotel is at the top of a mountain—between six and 10.30 for any alcoholic refreshment. The effect of the hours fixed for that particular hotel is that the hotel is practically closed altogether. Under the present Act the licensing bench have only power to fix one set of hours for the whole area under their control. The Bill which I am asking leave to introduce would give them an additional power to deal with special cases such as I have outlined, and it is framed with a view to meeting the existing difficulties. The House will see that it is only a Bill to meet special cases, and does not ask for any breach of the compromise which was arrived at in 1921. It is simply a Bill to
deal with the anomalous position which exists in many parts of the country at the present time.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I rise to oppose the Bill. I can quite understand the point made by the hon. Member concerning the anomalies under our present licensing system, and I can quite understand that there is agreement on this point among those who believe in the licensing of the business. What I am concerned about, and what I hold that every man and woman in this House ought to be concerned about, are the outstanding anomalies that arise as a result of licensing the business at all. It is not a question of regulation in a matter of this kind; it is a question of asking ourselves whether or not, under our national policy of licensing, this course should be pursued when we are confronted with such great evils the overcoming of which in itself presents specialised difficulties. When the mass of the people are struggling under severe difficulties, is it right that we should complicate those difficulties, especially for those who are otherwise groaning under oppression? Is is right that we should set these particular traps whereby they are demoralised?
The hon. Member has mentioned a hotel on a mountainous height. I suggest that it is not a question of going to the heights, but a question of going to the depths in a business of this kind. It puzzles me entirely to think that any man or woman associated with the conception of the elevation of the people—and all of us who have been brought here are understood to have that ideal in view—for a man or a woman to be engaged in the manufacture or the distribution of such a concoction is unquestionably one of the paramount factors that is demoralising the interests of the nation at large. That there should be such wealth accumulating in the hands of the few, and to the awful degradation of the many, is a, situation such that not a single Member of this House ought to be identified with the licensing system at all. It is in my view a matter of objection to the entire national policy of licensing. That policy can only be challenged when we deal with it and, in a comprehensive fashion, handle the question of manufacture as well as sale. Once we agree to manufacture, which, all the forces of religion and tem-
perance agree to, I quite understand the hon. Member's difficulty. He wants to try to find a fair allocation of hours between different districts. Other people who are identified with what is called reform set up the conception that a thing that is right on one side of the street is wrong on the other. That, to any man or woman looking at the thing fairly and squarely, is a position that we cannot accept. The real issue is the immorality, the actual degradation, the appalling results which are happening and which are, testified to by substantial records of the House and of every institution in the country. It is a most formidable power that we have to grapple with, and do not forget that during the War, when the call was made that this thing should have an end, that it should be entirely stopped, the power

which some members in the House specially represented was capable of holding up the entire nation and preventing that operation being carried out. That, of course, in my view was a mere expediency matter in the interests of materialism concerning the War at that time. The grounds which were put forward by business men as sheer grounds of materialism stand to-day alongside the great spiritual and moral issues which are involved in the call for the abolition of the entire liquor traffic.

Question put—
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give additional powers to licensing magistrates as to hours of opening licensed premises.

The House divided: Ayes, 174; Noes, 102.

Division No. 59.]
AYES.
[3.45 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Everard, W. Lindsay
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Albery, Irving James
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fermoy, Lord
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Balniel, Lord
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Malone, Major P. B.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fraser, Captain tan
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Frece, Sir Walter de
Margesson, Captain D.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Ganzoni, Sir John
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H
Gates, Percy
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Gaunt, Admiral Sir Guy R.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Berry, Sir George
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Montague, Frederick


Bethell, A.
Grace, John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grant, J. A.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Brass, Captain W.
Gretton, Colonel John
Murchison, C. K.


Briscoe, Richard George
Grundy, T. W.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Brittain, Sir Harry
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Naylor, T. E.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. L.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nicholson. William G. (Petersfield)


Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Nuttall, Ellis


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hartington, Marquess of
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Burman, J. B.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Haslam, Henry C.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Campbell, E. T.
Hawke, John Anthony
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Pielou, D. P.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Potts, John S.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Christie, J. A.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pownall, Lieut. Colonel Assheton


Clarry, Reginald George
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Radford, E. A.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Raine, W.


Connolly, M.
Hilton, Cecil
Ramsden, E.


Cope, Major William
Hirst, G. H.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Holland, Sir Arthur
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Remnant, Sir James


Crook, C. W.
Homan, C. W. J.
Rentaul, G. S.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Dalton, Hugh
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Roberts, Samuel (Herelord, Hereford)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ropner, Major L.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Rye, F. G.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Hurst, Gerald B.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Day, Colonel Harry
Jephcott, A. R.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Drewe, C.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Duckworth, John
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sandon, Lord


Eden, Captain Anthony
Knox, Sir Alfred
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Loder, J. de V.
Shepperson, E. W.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smithers, Waldron


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Sprot, Sir Alexander
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Womersley, W. J.


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Stuart, Crichton., Lord C.
Wells, S. H
Wragg, Herbert


Styles, Captain H. Walter
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Tinne, J. A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)



Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Waddington, R.
Windsor, Walter
Mr. Remer and Lieut.-Colonel James.


NOES.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Barnes, A.
Huntingfield, Lord
Snell, Harry


Barr, J.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stamford, T. W.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stephen, Campbell


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Bromley, J.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sutton, J. E.


Brown, James (Ayr and Butt)
Kelly, W. T.
Taylor, R. A.


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Charleton, H. C.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Clowes, S.
Kenyon, Barnet
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Thurtle, E.


Colfox, Major Wm. Philip
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
Livingstone, A. M.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lowth, T.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lumley, L. R.
Warne, G. H.


Dennison, R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfarmline)


England, Colonel A.
Mackinder, W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Fenby, T. D.
Maxton, James
Welsh, J. C.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Morris, R. H.
Westwood, J.


Forrest, W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, W.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Murnin, H.
Wignall, James


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Gillett, George M.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Gosling, Harry
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenall, T.
Ritson, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Wright, W.


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Rose, Frank H.



Hardie, George D.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Harris, Percy A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Mr. Scrymgeour and Mr. Groves.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Remer, Mr. Dixey, Dr. Watts, Lieut.-Colonel James, and Captain Arthur Evans.

LICENSING ACT (1921) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL,

"to give additional powers to licensing magistrates as to hours of opening licensed premises," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 128.]

ELECTIONS (CONVEYANCE OF VOTERS).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to the conveyance of persons to or from the poll, and for purposes connected therewith.
I am sure that there are many Members of all parties who feel that the present
position with regard to the conveyance of voters to the poll is not wholly satisfactory. In the first place, it places the voters, particularly in rural constituencies, in a rather invidious position. They must either, in effect, declare which way they are going to vote, and thereby make the Ballot Act of no effect, or they must be willing to travel in a motor car or some other vehicle carrying party colours, to which party they do not really adhere. That many independent voters do not like to do.
In the second place, the present position of affairs places the owner of a motor car in a very peculiar position as against other people. A man who owns a car may bring the car to the election from a long distance away. He may spend a considerable sum of money in transit. He may have to provide additional wages for the chauffeur, and he may, very likely he will, have to pay a heavy bill for repairs after the election is over. That is considered legitimate, where another man who is prepared to hire a car for the day
of the poll is forbidden to do so. Further than that, ten people, say, of no great means, may be prepared to club together and to pay £1 each, or a little less, for the purpose of providing a car, but they are not allowed to substitute themselves for the one man who owns a car. I am sure that every person in this House must realise that that is not an equitable method of dealing with this question.
Further I am certain that hon. Members who own cars, or whose friends own cars, must realise that the damage done to the ear in an election is out of all proportion to the advantage which the car confers upon the community as a whole.
Finally I think we are all beginning to realise that there is a very considerable danger to the public, and particularly to children, in many elections owing to the use of motor cars. Whenever I take part in an election, I am always very much afraid that some child will be run over and killed in the course of the helter-skelter of motor cars during the election. These are difficulties which hon. Members in all parts of the House will recognise.
What are the objects which we have in view? Our object is to enable every voter who honestly desires to go to the poll to have an opportunity of getting there. That implies, in the case of boroughs, that there must be some means of conveying the infirm and aged and those who are unable to walk a comparatively short distance. In counties it means a good deal more than that, because the distance to the poll from the homes of the people is often very considerable, and even active people would be unwilling, if not unable, to go the long distance which would be required in some cases to enable them to vote.
The object of the Bill, which has the support of Members of all parties in the House, is an attempt to remedy this evil. I do not think it is a very easy matter to deal with. It is a difficult and complicated question to tackle. The way in which my Bill proposes to deal with it is this: in the first place, I propose to pro-

hibit the use of private motor cars in taking voters to the poll, except in taking the man or woman who owns the car, and members of their own family living with them. The Bill makes it incumbent upon the returning officer to provide, according to certain Regulations, means of conveying to the poll in all constituencies persons who are infirm or unable to get to the poll. In addition to that, the Bill provides that in the county constituencies each candidate may nominate 2 per cent. of the electorate, and throw upon the returning officer the responsibility of conveying them to the poll.

The Bill does not attempt to do what would obviously be an advantage in regard to the saving of time, and that is, to increase the number of polling stations; but I hope that that would take place at the same time.

I admit that this is a very complicated question. Although I have done my best in this Bill to put forward proposals which I think are reasonable and could be carried into effect, I am bound to admit that they are not perfect. I do, however, ask very sincerely that hon. Members will allow the Bill to have a First Reading, so that it may be printed and they may be able to see it in print for themselves and, where necessary, the Bill can be modified at a later stage. If hon. Members agree to the First Reading of the Bill, they will have" an opportunity of having the definite proposal before them, and they can then consider it.

Colonel APPLIN: I rise to oppose the Bill.

Question put,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to the conveyance of persons to or from the poll, and for purposes connected therewith.

Colonel APPLIN: I wish to oppose the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: I waited for the hon. and gallant Member to rise. I have now collected the voices.

The House divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 212.

Division No. 60.]
AYES.
[4.0 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Batey, Joseph
Buchanan, G.


Ammon, Charles George
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey


Attlee, Clement Richard
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Charleton, H. C,


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Clowes, S.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Broad, F. A.
Cluse, W. S.


Barnes, A.
Bromley, J.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Barr, J.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Compton, Joseph


Connolly, M.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cove, W. G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snail, Harry


Crawfurd, H. E.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Day, Colonel Harry
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Dennison, R.
Lawson, John James
Sutton, J. E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lee, F.
Taylor, R. A.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lowth, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Fenby, T. D.
Lunn, William
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Thurtle, E.


Gibbins, Joseph
Mackinder, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Gillett, George M.
MacLaren, Andrew
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Gosling, Harry
Maxton, James
Varley, Frank B.


Greenall, T.
Montague, Frederick
Viant, S. P.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Warne, G. H.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Murnin, H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Naylor, T. E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Groves, T.
Palin, John Henry
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.
Welsh, J. C.


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Westwood, J.


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.
Whiteley, w.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wignall, James


Hardie, George D.
Riley, Ben
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Harris, Percy A.
Ritson, J.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Rose, Frank H.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hilton, Cecil
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Windsor, Walter


Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.
Wright, W.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Scurr, John



Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Mr. Pethick-Lawrence and Mr.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Oliver.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby)
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd Hemel Hempst'd)
Holland, Sir Arthur


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Holt, Capt. H. P.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Homan, C. W. J.


Balniel, Lord
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Drewe, C.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Duckworth, John
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
England, Colonel A,
Hume, Sir G. H.


Berry, Sir George
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Huntingfield, Lord


Bethell, A.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hurd, Percy A.


Betterton, Henry B.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Brass, Captain W.
Fermoy, Lord
Jephcott, A. R.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Briscoe, Richard George
Forrest, W.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Brittain, Sir Harry
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Kenyon, Barnet


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Knox, Sir Alfred


Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gates, Percy
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Burman, J. B.
Gault Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Loder, J. de V.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lumley, L. R.


Campbell, E. T.
Grace, John
MacAndrew, Charles Glen


Cautley, Sir Henry S
Grant, J. A.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Gretton, Colonel John
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Macquisten, F. A.


Christie, J. A.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Clarry, Reginald George
Harrison, G. J. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hartington, Marguess of
Malone, Major P. B.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Haslam, Henry C.
Margesson, Captain D.


Cope, Major William
Hawke, John Anthony
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Couper, J. B.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Crook, C. W.
Henn, Sir Sydney H-.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Morris, R. H.




Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Remnant, Sir James
Templeton, W. P.


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Rentoul, G. S.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Murchison, C. K.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell. (Croydon, S.)


Nelson, Sir Frank
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Tinne, J. A.


Neville, R. J.
Ropner, Major L.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Rye, F. G.
Waddington, R.


Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Nuttall, Ellis
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Pennefather, Sir John
Shaw, Capt. W. W, (Wilts, Westb'y)
Wells, S. R.


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Shepperson, E. W.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairympie


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wilson, Sir Charles H. (Leeds, Central)


Pielou, D.P.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Pilcher, G.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Power, Sir John Cecil
Smithers, Waldron
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wood, E.(Chest'r Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Radford, E. A.
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Rains, W.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wragg, Herbert


Ramsden, E.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)



Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Styles, Captain H. Walter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Remer, J. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Mr. Dennis Herbert and Mr.




Gerald Hurst.

SUMMER TIME BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow.

BILLS REPORTED.

Marriages Provisional Order Bill,

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Bideford Harbour Bill,

Nottinghamshire County Council (Gunthorpe Bridge) Bill,

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bolton Corporation Bill,

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Isle of Wight Highways Bill, without Amendment.

Amendments to—

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Blackpool Order) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate the enactments, relating to the housing of the working classes in England and Wales." [Housing Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate the enactments relating to the housing of the working classes in Scotland." [Housing (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate the enactments relating to town planning in England and Wales." [Town Planning Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate the enactments relating to town planning in Scotland." [Town Planning (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]

HOUSING BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 124.]

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to, be printed. [Bill 125.]

TOWN PLANNING BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 126.]

TOWN PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 127.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Fire Brigade Pensions Bill and the Statutory Gas Companies (Electricity Supply Powers) Bill): Sir Burton Chadwick; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Cazalet.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Secretary Sir William Joynson-Hicks.

Report to lie upon the Table.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS).

Special Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 71.]

Orders of the Day — RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS CONTINUATION) BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [11th March], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Which Amendment was to leave out from the word "That", to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
this House cannot assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which, whilst purporting to continue for a limited period the protection of tenants of dwelling houses, does not amend the Law under which in an increasing number of cases this protection is withdrawn, continues legal sanction for increases in rent no longer justifiable, contains no provisions for simplifying existing legislation in order to reduce litigation, takes no cognisance of the length of time necessary to overcome the housing shortage, and is wholly inadequate to deal with the present situation."—[Mr. Wheatley.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Mr. JAMES STEWART: Two weeks ago last Friday we had a remarkable speech made by the Prime Minister, and it was responded to from this side of the House with a great deal of support. The sentiment in that speech touched upon a chord on this side of the House which expressed itself in hearty cheers. He asked the House that we should treat his speech as a gesture towards peace within the country. Outside the House we have had several statements made during the last week, not dealing with the speech, but making some kind of response. Several gentlemen, referring to the situation that now obtains in the country, have declared that the way to get over the difficulty is for the workers to work longer hours and to accept lower wages. Inside the House on the Wednesday following that remarkable speech of the Prime Minister we had the Minister of Health coming forward with his gesture towards peace in the country, and it was to stabilise for 2½ years the conditions that obtained with regard to the rent question and rent control in the country.
He made a statement that the condition generally does not warrant any change being made in the provisions of the 1920 Act. I think, at least I hope, after reflection he will reconsider the position that he has taken up and make the Bill so that when it comes to be dealt with in Committee Amendments can be moved.
Take the City of Glasgow with which we are all now pretty familiar in this House. I want to use it as an illustration of what is going on in other parts of the country. We are told by the landlords, by the factors, and by the house-owners that their condition is actually worse than is was prior to 1913–14. The facts are that in 1911 we had 22,000 empty houses in Glasgow, by 1913–14 that number had been reduced to 14,000, and by about the, time of the outbreak of the War it had decreased to 7,000. To-day, in Glasgow, there is, practically speaking, not an empty house, except the few that are kept empty by the will and by the action of the landlords who desire to sell rather than to let. Those 22,000 houses let at an average rent of £10 per annum, so that the landlords then were not receiving in rent £220,000 that they would have received if the houses had been let. But so far as Glasgow is concerned, and I believe the whole of Scotland, where houses or premises are unoccupied the landlord has to pay the owners' rates, and that meant at that time a loss of at least 2s. each house over and above, the rent. If you allow for the decrease that took place in the succeeding years prior to the outbreak of war, he was losing a considerable amount of money in the shape of no rent for unlets. Since 1915 he has not been suffering that loss. Consequently, he is now relatively much better off that he was then.
Then came the Act of 1920 which we are now discussing and in which power was given to the landlords to increase the rent by 40 per cent., 25 per cent. of which was allowed for repairs. That 25 per cent. meant a, great addition to the landlords of these particular houses. In 1919 the total rental for the houses in Glasgow was £3,316,000; in 1924 it had gone up to £4,880,000, an increase to the landlords of over £1,500,000. The factors, in the case that they made before the recent Rent Commission appointed by the Secretary for Scotland to deal with the situation that obtains in Clydebank, through their representative, Mr. Faulds, justified this
25 per cent. increase by saying that their expenditure for last year was £500,000. In the year 1913 they spent £300,000, but the 25 per cent. increase on a rental of £4,880,000 meant that they should have been spending, if they were in the same position as in 1913, considerably over £1,000,000. But according to Mr. Faulds' statement all they spent was £500,000. Therefore, if these factors' figures are correct, it is demonstrated that the property owners have improved their condition very much.
What has been the position of the tenants during that time? Just after 1920, when the Act was passed, there came the debacle when wages fell. Today in this country it is reckoned, on the most conservative estimate, that so far as the working classes are concerned they are losing annually, as compared with the year 1920, £600,000,000 per annum in wages. [HON. MEMBERS: "More than that!"] I am taking the most conservative estimate, and not those of £800,000,000 or £1,000,000,000. I want to be certain that the figures with regard to this matter will not be contradicted. So they are now in a worse position than they were before in that respect. On the top of the increase of rent there have been concessions made to the landlords and property owners in this country. In a circular, which they have issued to property owners and factors throughout Scotland, they claim that they got the rent limit increased through their efforts in 1919 to £90. They make a further claim that in the year 1922, in the Budget of that year, they got the amount of rent that was deducted in allowance for maintenance charges changed from one-fourth to one-sixth. All that has been added on since 1913, and now they make the claim that they are not in a position to bear any reduction, and the Minister of Health has adopted that argument, and, in spite of the plain facts that the condition of the people generally has become worse, he still stands by that position.
Now what are repairs? Prior to the War it was a generally recognised custom throughout Scotland, and I daresay England as well, that the papering and painting of the Houses were considered part of the repairs. To-day there is hardly a single owner or factor who will pay for
or contribute in any degree towards keeping the house in a condition that he willingly did in the year 1913 or 1911. Between 1911 and 1913, and prior to that time, there was a class of people in all the cities who moved from their house each year, and the factors in those days, to get a new tenant, would paper and paint the house even though it had only been done a year earlier for the tenant who had left. The landlord is saving all that money now. Further than that it is the law that, where the stairs or anything of that kind are dangerous, the factor is responsible, but that is not so in practice. That was the law, and is supposed to be the law, but it is equally true that some of the sheriffs in Glasgow have held that if a tenant knowingly lived where the stairs were dangerous, and if an accident occurred there, the factor or the property owner was not responsible because the tenant had willingly incurred the risk. We have had deaths in Glasgow owing to properties of that kind, and there was no claim against the property owner on account of his property being in such a dangerous condition. These are all things on the side of the factor.
The Glasgow Corporation in 1921 passed a resolution in favour of the increase of rent, that is the total increase, being only 25 per cent. not 25 per cent. for repairs merely, but 25 per cent. as an equitable increase that would restore the proprietors of property to the position in which they were prior to the outbreak of war. When I come to the question of repairs necessary to put houses into a sanitary condition, I have a few figures. The number of complaints since 1921, with regard to the habitable condition of houses, has been 15,787. The number of houses affected was 8,000 and the sanitary authorities of our city have had, because the proprietors themselves would not bear the expense of repairing the houses, to repair 645. It is evident to me, and I believe to most hon. Members of this House who have considered this matter impartially, that there ought to be a proper investigation into this matter of repairs, and that the Minister, when we come to deal with the Bill, should allow us to amend it in such a way as to enable us in Committee to deal with this situation. Between now and the Committee stage the facts could be inquired into, and if the statements I have made are incorrect, and can be shown by
them to be erroneous in any degree, then it is in the Committee that we shall deal with it. If on the other hand the statements are correct, then I have proved beyond doubt that there is room for a reconsideration of this 25 per cent. which is allowed for repairs. When we take into consideration the great amount of money which the property owners are now receiving, which they were losing in 1911, when we consider that they have not got now to pay landlords' rates on empty houses, and that they have cut off these amounts for repairs, maintenance and decorations altogether, then it is established to my mind, and I hope to the mind of the House, that this position is not right.
The Minister of Health has made a statement with regard to decontrol, and I can believe that he honestly believes it. He said the decontrol had not worked out injuriously. He had investigated the question in 10 large industrial cities, and from four of these he got serious complaints, but on the whole the thing was working well. Again, dealing with Glasgow, may I point out that for the year 1924 there were 1,109 houses in which the rent was increased beyond the legal standard. These are the figures of the City Assessor who, giving evidence before the Commission, said that 1,109 houses had had their rents increased beyond the legal standard. The rents were increased from £1 to £14, the average increase being 10 per cent., and in one case as much as 68 per cent. If you add together the increases of all these rents the total amount comes to a very considerable sum. Then I have here a statement to show that the City Assessor was not revealing anything like the whole of the facts connected with this matter. This morning I got a letter from Glasgow about one house. I admit that you cannot argue that because a thing has happened in one case it is the general rule, but I do honestly believe that this one case can be taken as typical of other oases that have not been revealed. In the aggregate perhaps the number is not very great, but the fact is one which should be taken into consideration in dealing with the question of decontrol.
In a house in Langside, in a two room and kitchen house, the tenant has just had to pay £45 for key money, and, further than that, the rent has been
increased from £32 to £45. Another house on the same property, with the same number of rooms, has had the rent increased £10. All round, so far as Glasgow is concerned, decontrol is taking place. Mr. Steel, the factors' representative on the Committee, stated, when this evidence was being given by Mr. Walker, in the course of a question that he put to him, that he knew of one factor who had houses decontrolled to the number of 3,000. He said that in these cases the rents had not been increased, but I think we may assume that, if one factor is doing that, that that is not the practice generally throughout Glasgow with regard to this particular position. Further than that, the decontrol situation is causing a tremendous amount of unrest. There are cases, as the City Assessor has said, at the moment in which some speculators have come in and bought up property, and are keeping these houses unlet, determined to keep them unlet, to sell them at a price which people will have to pay because of their inability to get a house otherwise.
It is not correct to say in Glasgow, as the Secretary of Scotland well knows, that building is overtaking the situation so far as housing is concerning. We are getting worse month by month and year by year. Altogether we have built fewer than 6,000 houses in Glasgow between 1919 and December, 1924. Our requirements are 5,000 houses a year. Since 1919 we have built only that number of houses against our annual requirements of at least 5,000. In 1919 we were 57,000 houses short. To-day we are nearly 80,000 houses short, basing our estimate on the figures of 1919. Consequently the power to deal with the situation is getting worse and worse, so far as rents are concerned. In Glasgow the poorer tenants have a rent book. On this the factor marks the rent and the arrears, and the books are made up in many cases in such a way that it is impossible for the tenant to know where he stands with regard to his rent. One of our city magistrates, Bailie Mrs. Barbour, when giving evidence before the Commission, handed up a typical rent-book from Govan. She handed it to Mr. Steel, the factor's representative. He studied that book with a little care and handed it back to Mrs. Barbour with the remark, "If I studied that book from now to next July, I could not read its riddle." They had to get Mr. Walker to
undertake the work, and Mr. Walker reported that the position, so far as getting the rent book solved was concerned, was almost impossible.
The trouble goes right away back to the beginning, and the rent books are in such a condition as to preclude the people from understanding their position. The Sheriff Courts at Glasgow just now are crowded with applications from factors for decrees of eviction. The tenants go into Court with their rent books. They have no lawyer to help them. They are in terror, and they do not understand the books. The consequence is that when they present these books there is no one present who either cares or understands, and I believe that in many cases decrees are being given when if there were a better method of dealing with the situation such things would not occur. The Commission appointed Mr. Gunnison, Lecturer on Social Economics in Glasgow University, to investigate the condition of the tenants. I do not want to weary the House with all that he said, or anything approaching it, but I would state this much. He investigated the condition of 400 tenants. He found that of 258 tenants 14 per cent. had a family income of less than £2 per week, 46 per cent. had less than £3 per week, and some of the families had an income as low as 18s. per week, of which they had to pay 47 per cent. as rent.
We are pleading with you, for you have the power. We ask that in this new Bill you should put provisions that will enable us to deal with the situation. These people cannot possibly pay the rents. Is it fair that the people who have suffered privations, both in reduction of wages and in reduction or loss of employment, should be called upon to suffer, while property owners are allowed to continue in their safe position. All that we ask is that when this Bill goes to Committee we may be able to consider these questions. The poverty of the people is intense. If the majority of Members of this House would consider the appeal that was made in his recent speech by the Prime Minister, they might come to understand how it is that conditions are brought about that are disastrous in the long run.
You may crush and you may continue crushing, but some day there comes a
terrible convulsion at least, so history teaches us. You cannot expect these people to submit to being evicted, as they are being evicted, to continue starving, as many of them are starving, to undergo the privation that they are undergoing, while the power of this House and all that it contains within itself is thrown into the scale on the side of a favoured class. Why not consider the problem? When the Bill comes to the Committee stage, why not give us a chance of putting our case? If it is wrong, you will turn it down. I hope that the Minister will consider this point, and that in his reply he will indicate that he has widened the Bill in such a way as will enable us to deal with the situation, not only in my own city, but in the industrial parts of Scotland, in the whole of the Clyde Valley. What I have said of Glasgow and the district around, I believe is equally true throughout the whole length of industrial Britain. Therefore I hope that the Minister will concede the demands that we are making.

Mr. GATES: I do not approach this subject from the point of view of a Glasgow Member, but I wish to say a word or two from the point of view of a Landon Member, and especially from the point of view of one in whose constituency the housing position is somewhat acute. I do not desire for a moment to criticise the decision of the Minister to extend control until Christmas, 1927. Although I look upon State control in all matters of business as an evil, I am bound to confess that in this case it is an inevitable evil until the supply of houses in some degree equals the demand. I wish to emphasise what has been already said, that while the Bill proposes to continue the restriction of rents in favour of tenants, at the same time it has the effect of holding up a great many building schemes for the provision of working-class dwellings. I know of several such cases, the Guinness Trust in particular, where people are unable to continue their beneficent operations because they are unable to get possession of property which is at present covered with worn-out houses.
There are many cases in my own constituency where streets of houses are practically worn out. It would be very desirable to replace these worn-out houses
by modern and up-to-date dwellings. In the present circumstances it, is impossible for the promoters of such schemes to proceed with the work, because they are met with claims under the Rent Restrictions Act. They cannot give the people alternative possession, and so the schemes are hung up. That means that the only places where the Guinness Trust and such trusts can proceed are places where there is vacant land. There is very little of that in my constituency or in most of the constituencies in London. Might I suggest to the Minister of Health, from the municipal point of view, that if he could give the municipal authorities power to house people whom they might be inclined to dispossess for a housing scheme, it would have a very beneficial effect on the re-housing of the people of London. At present borough councils are held up. A street may be bad and the houses rotten. It may be desirable that the houses should be pulled down, but the authorities are utterly unable to proceed because they cannot offer the people housing anywhere else. If they were allowed to put up temporary buildings, or if they had power to hire land for such a, purpose, it would facilitate many municipal schemes.
May I here thank the Minister for giving us London Members an opportunity of seeing the Weir houses in Grosvenor Gardens? It was a very great advantage for us I have seen those houses, and to know how quickly they could be run up. It seems to me nothing short of a scandal that there should be over a million unemployed, and yet housing schemes are hung up for want of men. The London County Council have had their schemes delayed for a considerable time, simply because they could not get men to proceed with them; money has been voted, but the men could not be obtained. I hope that the Minister will press forward some, further dilution in the building trade, and also proceed with schemes of new construction. I would like to express some measure of sympathy for the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for West, Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), as I feel that the taking away of the men—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot discuss another Measure on this Bill.

Mr. GATES: I was only about to refer to an instance in my own borough, where
a super-cinema authority had bought out private property, with an agreement as to compensation. The promoters are now proceeding with the work of building this super-cinema, and are employing a great number of men. Yet local authorities cannot get men for building. That is why I wished to express my sympathy with the Bill of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough. I would also like to support very strongly the view expressed by the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) with reference to the removal of the restriction on mortgages. I cannot see that the restrictions on rents and mortgages are in pari materia. If the falling in of mortgages is restricted, if the continuation of restriction is affected by this Bill, it necessarily means that many estates on which part of the property is mortgaged are held up and left in the lawyers' hands for a considerable time. That benefits few people except the lawyers. Certainly it does not benefit the tenants. In these clays when, with the advent of a Conservative party to power, there is greater confidence amongst the investing public, I cannot see that there would be any difficulty in arranging for a transfer of such mortgages, as long as money was lent for a good scheme on reasonable terms. I hope the Minister will seriously consider the removal of the restriction on mortgages, regard being paid to Section 14 of the Act of 1923 which, I think, gives ample protection both to the mortgagor and the landlord of the property. Under that Section application can be made to the County Court and, in cases of exceptional hardship, an order may or may not be made as circumstances dictate.
We have heard a great deal as to the iniquity of the 40 per cent. increase in respect of repairs and such like. I have the misfortune to be the mortgagee in possession of a small working-class estate and I confess I find the cost of repairs to be more than 40 per cent. above the pre-War level. I do not hold myself up as a particularly good landlord, but I think I am not a bad one, and I do not mind telling the House that the interest which I get on my property is 2 per cent., and I expect many other owners of working-class property, who endeavour to do their duty and keep the houses in repair would confirm my statement. I understood the Minister to say he was not
prepared to admit any Amendments to this Bill and that the Bill was intended only to continue the restrictions. There are other points which I should like to raise because I have had many letters on this subject. I have had letters, for instance, from people who bought their houses for occupation and who cannot get possession and there are many other cases which I should like to discuss in Committee if it were posible to do so, but if the Minister is going to limit this Bill and make it simply an extension of time Bill I presume an opportunity will come at some other time.

Mr. STEPHEN: I am sorry the Minister has thought fit to deal with this question in such a limited fashion. With such a big majority behind him and with the opportunity which is afforded to him the Minister should endeavour to introduce a comprehensive Measure which would deal so adequately with this matter, that there would no longer be the continual complaints which we hear in reference to it. The Minister will agree that it is unlikely that we shall have decontrol at the date mentioned in the Bill. It is very unlikely that we are going to have so many houses added to those we have at present, and that this matter will be taken out of its present position, in which the owners are enjoying a monopoly. I hope, even at this late hour, the Minister will agree to make this Measure more comprehensive, and when it goes to Committee that he will allow us to deal with various outstanding points which require to be dealt with now. Speaking as a representative of the West of Scotland I think it possible that we have to face more difficult circumstances in this connection than other Members of the House, and yet, when I was addressing a meeting under the shadow of Windsor Castle recently, and was describing the pitiable conditions of so many of our decent people in Glasgow owing to the fearful housing situation there, I was surprised by an interruption from a member of my audience who said that the same "bughouses" existed under the Shadow of Windsor Castle.
I put in a plea, first of all, that when the Bill goes to Committee we should have an opportunity to introduce proposals for a reduction of the 40 per cent. increase. In Scotland we have to face a
larger increase than 40 per cent. The City Assessor in Glasgow has estimated it at 47 per cent., and while this increase was put on in 1920, when working-class folk were enjoying a rate of wages which made it possible for them to pay it, today they are in very poor circumstances as compared with their circumstances at the time the 1920 Act was passed. There are almost 200,000 houses in Glasgow under the Rent Restrictions Acts, and most of those houses are occupied by members of the working class whose position I have just indicated. I have received some figures from the tenants' representative on the Rents Commission, Bailie Dollan, who informs me that it is estimated that about 200,000 workers have suffered a reduction in wages of about 30s. per week each, which means to say that the people who came within the scope of that Act and who will come within the scope of this Bill have suffered a reduction in wages amounting to over £10,000,000 per annum. I think it is only reasonable when those people have been put into that position that this House should seek to lessen the burdens imposed on them by the permitted increase of rents under the 1920 Act. It is said the increase is necessary to meet the cost of repairs. According to the City Assessor of Glasgow the rent increase is bringing in a sum of almost £1,000,000 per year extra on the houses concerned. If you ask any citizen of Glasgow, has he heard of any houses being repaired since the 1920 Act was passed, he will laugh and tell you that he never heard of such a thing. Figures have been given to suggest that almost £500,000 has been spent in that way, but I question those figures. In no district can one come across anything to show that the property owners or their agents have been dealing with this matter. Members from Glasgow have, from time to time, sought to convey to this House some idea of the need which exists for repairs in connection with houses in Glasgow. I suggest the Minister should allow a Clause to be inserted in this Bill which would give us an opportunity for dealing with the case of the property owners who are seriously making an attempt to keep their houses in condition and also of dealing with those who are merely taking advantage of the permitted increase and are doing nothing in return. On the housing question we have got into a very unfortunate
position. In Glasgow there are 191,000 houses which come under this Act, and I make bold to say at least half of them are more than 50 years old, and to-day the rent obtained for those houses is at least 50 per cent. higher than the rent which was obtained when the houses were new.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It is 60 per cent.

Mr. STEPHEN: The hon. Member suggests that it is nearer 60 per cent., but I am taking a very moderate estimate. As I say, these houses are more than 50 years old, and because of the way in which the housing question has been mishandled in the past, the owners are able to extort from their tenants this tremendous increase in rent. That is fundamentally unjust, and the present Government is in a good position to remove the injustice. Such an action would redound to their credit, but there is no proposal of that kind in the Bill. The Minister seems to have asked him self: What is the least the country will take without pressure being brought to bear upon me in this matter? I can assure him there will be much more pressure in the future unless we get a better treatment of this question than it has received up to the present. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that houses have been going out of control and that there has not been such an increase in the rents of those decontrolled houses as would create any public agitation. In the West of Scotland:. it is estimated that the increase on the rents of the decontrolled houses is about 10 per cent. In one case which is mentioned it has gone as high as 68 per cent., and while there has not been an agitation hitherto, that is because so many people who listened to the eloquence of hon. Gentlemen opposite at the General Election were assured that this magnificent and stable Government, whose members were possessed of such great abilities, was really going to deal with this subject in a satisfactory way. When those people know that all they are going to get is a continuation of the present state of affairs, there will be a very much greater agitation on this question than we ever had.
Therefore, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the position and to give the Committee, which will deal with this Bill, an opportunity of intro-
ducing improvements. Since I have been in this House I have noticed that a Minister is scarcely ever reasonable or rational enough to take advantage of suggestions proposed, even though they come from his own party, for the improvement of a Measure which he has brought forward himself. We have heard the Minister of Health described as an enterprising man with a big imagination who is going to do a lot to solve the housing problem. I suggest he should make an innovation in this respect and leave some scope to the Committee. He knows that in Committee he has sufficient numbers to ensure that nothing will be included in the Bill of which he is not in favour. The statement certainly cannot be made that in Scotland there has been no agitation in regard to the housing question. The Secretary of Scotland had to appoint a Rents Commission, and he had to get the property owners and factors or agents, on the one hand, and the tenants, on the other, to agree to a truce while the Commission was sitting. The only people to break that truce were the right hon. Gentleman himself and his Lord Advocate.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): indicated dissent.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. STEPHEN: The right hon. Gentlemen shakes his head, but I wish to put to the House a situation which has arisen in reference to Clydebank, the centre of so much disturbance. The tenant of a house, an ex-service man, was in the infirmary, and while he was in the infirmary, his wife and children were being evicted from their home, one of the children being an imbecile girl. The ex-soldier heard of this, and although warned by the doctors that it was dangerous in his case to do so, he left the infirmary and put his family back in their house. The town council was so concerned about it that they went to the sheriff and said to him, "Hold this case over, and we will try to get accommodation." They had to go back and say that they could not get accommodation, and then the sheriff said, "We will have to go on with the case." And this defender of his country was sent to prison for 14 days, because he was trying to get a shelter for his wife and family, while the Rent Commission was sitting, and the Secretary for
Scotland was assuring us there was going to be a truce. This House has had stirring scenes in the past. There have been ever so many times when the indignation of Members has made a pretty difficult situation. Unless we are going to get something material for the people whom we represent with regard to the burden of rent that they have been called upon to face, there will be no peace in industry so far Is Scotland is concerned. The Prime Minister has become very expert in the pious platitudes in which he has indulged with regard to the possibilities in this country. It is not good enough for him to say, "Give peace in our time, O Lord," if he and his fellow Ministers in regard to those things which so closely affect the lives and welfare of our people in Scotland, are not going to make some concessions to us.
I hoped that in this Measure we might have had some safeguarding of the rights of the people with regard to the position in which they are put in the matter of the rent books. A representative on the Commission handed up a rent-book, and said he would never be able to find out what arrears they were. When the tenant goes to the factor, the factor says, "You are in arrears. That is enough for you. Get out of this," and, if the tenant presses for a statement, he finds himself in the Sheriff Court, with an action for arrears, and threatened with eviction. The position with regard to these rent-books is intolerable. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman himself, if he has not got a big body at his meetings to protect him, will have similar experience to that which we on this side have had, of people shoving the rent-book into his hand, and asking him to tell them how much they are in arrears. I want to point out, further, that, on the authority of the City Assessor of Glasgow. the factors had been breaking the law by not having included in the rent-books a separate statement of the amount of rent and of the amount of rates. Under the Rating Act of 1920, that was necessary, but they do not do it, and, because these people are poor, there seems to be no protection for them whatsoever.
These is another matter. I think it is time the House should have the opportunity of seeing that this business of premiums is dealt with. A man came to
me the other week when I was in my constituency and said, "There are some houses here that are empty, and we could get those houses if we would pay a certain sum, say £10, the amount of arrears left by the previous tenant." I do not think that is fair. Why should an incoming tenant be made responsible for the debts left by a previous tenant, and houses stand empty, because the factors will not let them unless they can get that money? It is very difficult to get exact details in connection with those things, but this is what is going on. I have a cutting here from a paper last week, but in any issue of the Glasgow "Citizen" the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland can get cases that are worthy of investigation. We get this sort of thing—
To let. Room and kitchen. Bathroom, hot and cold. Must buy furniture. Factor's consent.
They must buy the furniture if they get the factor's consent, because, doubtless, he is going to get a commission on the price that is paid for the furniture. The furniture is not real furniture at all, but just so many sticks, and a big price is charged for them, so that a premium is being extorted. Again you have—
To Let. Two rooms. Kitchen. Perfect condition. Must buy furniture; all best quality. Factor's consent.
Here is another—
Room, kitchen, £60. Two rooms, kitchen, £75. Furniture.
And so the business goes on. I put it to the House, you cannot expect anything but discontent; you cannot get anything like peace in our district unless there is an attempt made to meet the people. I submit there is no attempt being made in this Measure to meet the people who are in the most difficult circumstances. This House goes on allowing the factors to get this increase of rent, because they are supposed to do repairs. They do not do them. They will not even do the papering and painting that they used to do. There are thousands of insanitary houses in Glasgow. I had a case last week where a man got a sanitary officer's certificate, but when he went to the Sheriff Court, because he was inexperienced, he was bustled aside, and called upon to pay so much per week, although he had this certificate which entitled him to stop paying. I would suggest that in this Measure you might,
at least, protect the people who are in those insanitary houses, condemned as unfit for human habitation. I went in the house about which I was speaking. There were big holes in the floor, and the rats kept running out. On the wall, there was not nice wallpaper with beautiful flowers, but the marks of the beetles that had been killed in their scores by the tenant of that house, and there he was paying about 25s. a month for this rathole, in which he was compelled to stay. Last Sunday, one of my constituents came to me and said, "I am subject to tuberculosis; I got it through my service in the Army. But I cannot get a house; it is so difficult."
We are face to face with that sort of thing every day. The Minister should be bold in this matter, and reduce the rents. I suggest going back to the 1914 rents for all houses more than 10 years old. Everything else that gets old, except, perhaps, wine and spirit, becomes of less value. I do not know much about wine and spirit, because I have been a total abstainer all my life, but I know that clothes get old, and if you want to dispose of them, or hire them out to somebody, they fetch a much lower price. As regards house property, the Minister might allow a Clause for the rent of houses, and set up a Rent Court. At any rate, let us get some improvement on the present state of matters. Do not let us go on with this petty Measure that is simply going to bring relief to a few people. Let us have some attempt to meet the ease of those people who are living under the hardest circumstances.
This House goes on with this legislation year after year, always providing so much for the more comfortably circumstanced members of the community. To-day I make a plea for the people who are down and out, for those who gave their service—and there are hundreds and thousands—when the Great War was on, but who to-day are face to face with the threat of eviction from the rotten holes in which they are compelled to live because they cannot even pay for them. Let us have something. I do appeal to the Minister of Health to show some consideration in this respect. Let him bring some measure of hope to the hearts of those people, who, under the most dreadful housing conditions, under a burden of unemployment such as this country has
possibly never experienced in its whole history—let him bring some measure of hope, at least, by relieving those people of some of the difficulties they have got to face.

Mr. RADFORD: I am sure that no Member of the House could have listened to the speeches of the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart) and the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) without feeling in entire sympathy with them and their constituents who are living in insanitary dwellings. I am sure that in no part of the House is there any sympathy with a bad landlord, and I cannot imagine a worse type of landlord than one who will take advantage of the 40 per cent. increase in rent, to which he is entitled under the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, and who takes the extra 40 per cent., and does not do the repairs even on the pre-War scale. I do ask the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health to give serious and favourable consideration in Committee to some provision being inserted to enable—although I will not go so far as the hon. Member for Camlachie—but, at any rate, to enable tenants, who are not having their houses kept in a reasonable and proper state of repair, to go before the County Court Judge, make a statement of their case, and be absolved from the payment of the 40 per cent. increase.
The other point I wish to make is with regard to the restriction on the calling in of mortgages. The House will remember, when the principal Act was passed in 1920, the financial position of the country was absolutely abnormal. There was a big trade boom, and, possibly, at that time there was a justification for making the provision which was then made, that only 1 per cent. above the standard rate of interest could be received by the mortgagee, and he was absolutely debarred from calling in his mortgage or enforcing his security in any way, provided the interest was paid in 21 days, provided covenants were observed and the property kept in reasonable repair. I submit there is no necessity for the continuance of that proviso. What was a necessity then, possibly, is now an unjustifiable interference with the contractual rights between the two parties. We must not think that the owner who has mortgaged his property is of necessity
a comparatively poor person. In my own experience, I have known numbers of very wealthy men who go in for property as a standard form of investment, and always make a practice—at least they did in pre-War days—of investing, say, £1,000 of their own money, and borrowing £2,000 on mortgage, so as to get the proceeds of an investment of £3,000. By that means, they got, possibly, 6 per cent. on their own money, and possibly 2 per cent. on each £1,000 borrowed. I have known within the last two or three years numbers of cases where men owe money in that way and, because the money is cheap to them—they are only paying 1 per cent. over pre-War rates, and in many cases 4½ per cent.—they deliberately invest their money in other directions, so as to retain the cheap money they have from the mortgagees. Lending money on mortgage was always a favourite form of investment for small investors, and there is no doubt eat in many cases at the present time there are numbers of very rich people, property-owners, who owe money on mortgage at less than the real marker rates to people of very much less means than themselves. The only excuse for the continuance of this restriction is that restrictions are being imposed on the property owners of this class of property and that, therefore, they should have some protection in their turn. If the right hon. Gentleman would adapt Section 14 of the Act of 1923, which was to take effect after decontrol had come about, into this Bill. I think it would give ample protection to any person owning this controlled property who was not in a position to pay off the mortgage if it was called in. The provision says
The County Court may, on the application of the landlord, make an Order restraining the mortgagee from calling in his mortgage or taking steps for enforcing his security or for recovering the principal money thereby secured, if it is satisfied that such calling in, enforcement or recovery would cause exceptional hardship to the landlord.
In conclusion, I would say that we all recognise an absolute necessity for this Bill, but the less we interfere with natural laws the better, and I hold that we have rip justification for continuing this one-sided position which has existed during these last five years in which, if the
mortgagor, the owner of the property, who owes the money wants to pay off his mortgage, he has a right to do so, but the man to whom the money is owing has no right to call it in. That is an anomalous position, which, I hold, is no longer justified.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: A part of the Amendment which has been moved expresses regret that no provisions exist for the simplifying of existing legislation in order to reduce litigation, and certain remarks were made on that part of the Amendment by the Minister of Health when the Second Reading of the Bill was under discussion on a previous day. I am very glad to see, however, that the right hon. Gentleman asked:
Does it mean a Consolidation Bill? If that is all that. it means, I do not say it would not be possible to consolidate the existing Rent Acts if it were thought to be desirable to take up such time of the House as would be necessary in order to consolidate Bills which are themselves only of a temporary character. But perhaps the right hon. Gentleman means that he could express in better language the provisions of the existing Rent Acts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1925: cols. 1368–9, Vol. 181.]
I am optimistic enough to believe that, if once we were to get to work to consolidate this legislation, in the process of consolidation we might also simplify. I do not think the two things are mutually contradictory, and undoubtedly there has been an enormous amount of litigation arising under this legislation, which, I think, has been caused to a large extent by the extraordinarily confused nature of the various Acts which have been passed by Parliament. I do not mean in any way to blame the draftsmen. I do not know where the blame lies—it may lie with all of us—but the net result has been that we have to-day an extraordinary tangle. and when we consider that this legislation is dealing primarily with poor people, who do not understand law and who, possibly, are not able to consult lawyers, or, if they do, possibly do not consult very competent lawyers—[An HON. MEMBER, "Are not all lawyers competent?"]—I am prepared to assume that they are all competent. At any rate, there has been a needless amount of confusion and doubt.
There are thousands of people who do not know what their rights are under the Rent Acts, and I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that there is always a lot of talk by lazy people
about the difficulties of understanding acts of Parliament. The most industrious people sometimes find a difficulty in understanding Acts of Parliament, and certainly, when you are dealing with the class of people whom this legislation seeks to protect, it is important that the law should be expressed in the clearest possible language. That was the intention when the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1906 was passed in this House, to try to express it in the clearest possible language, and although I agree that that Act, in its turn, led to a great deal of litigation, yet there was, for a long time at least, only one Act on which doubt could be expressed, and that litigation was very largely concerned with questions a medical fact rather than with questions of law. It has been suggested that the confusion in these Acts has been about worked out, but that, I think, is a profound fallacy. I find, in looking at the returns for England and Wales alone—I say nothing about Scotland—

Mr. BUCHANAN: We do not go to the lawyers in Scotland.

Sir H. SLESSER: I rather fancy you do, but I have not got the figures. Looking at the figures for England and Wales, for 1923, I find that no fewer than 37,000 summonses were taken out in the- County Courts under the Rent Restrictions Act, and that 23,000 orders for possession were made. Those are all cases really under this Act, and not summonses for possession for non-payment of rent, which are separately stated. So far from the numbers decreasing, I find that they were considerably larger in 1923 than they were in 1922, for they had gone. up from 26,000 odd to 37,000 odd—37,000 cases of summonses taken out in the County Courts of England and Wales under this one Act alone! In regard to appeals, in 1924 no fewer than 31 cases on pure points of law were taken into the Divisional Court on appeal from the County Courts, and 10 into the Court of Appeal, under an Act dealing with cases of poor property—poor, that is, from a financial point of view, where you would not wish to have expensive, cumbersome litigation—and I believe that if it were investigated, it would be found that most of these cases in the Court of Appeal probably cost as much as the value of the house causing the litigation. There has been an increase in the appeals too, and I see that since
1920 there have been 135 cases in the Divisional Court and 35 in the Court of Appeal, while three have even gone to the House of Lords, in England am. Wales alone, for this small class of property.
Therefore, I think there is a case for asking for the simplification of this law. I do not believe there is a single Section of the original Act which has not been modified by references in other Acts. which do not themselves express what the existing law is, or that there is scarcely a. Section of the last Act or the Act before that which you could understand without reference to the principal Act. A man has to go about with three or four Acts of Parliament in his pocket before he knows whether or not he will be allowed to stay in his house. You are dealing here with a. particular class of property owned by poor people. It may be very interesting and very fascinating for owners of large estates to argue nice points about conveyances of real property, but, here we are dealing with a class of property where it is essential that the tenant and the landlord should know their rights in clear and unambiguous language. I do not like this idea that there is so much money, year after year going into the pockets of my particular profession because of this confusion. I do not think it is the intention of Parliament, and it is, certainly, not the desire of the landlords, who very often have to pay costs in any event.
All that I say in regard to this legislation, which will continue, whether we like it or not, indefinitely—nobody believes that it will end in two years' time—is that the time has now come when we should consider the whole of this legislation and have it consolidated, as far as possible, into one simple Act without references to other Acts. In consolidation we can simplify, we can make clear, we can take account of the decisions already given, and I believe we could avoid a great deal of this enormous amount of litigation which is going on to-day, and give both landlord and tenant, so far as it is possible in any Act of Parliament, a clear idea of what their rights actually are.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: The previous speakers to-day have been saying a good deal about the wrongs of the tenants and have voiced the dismay which the particular form of this Bill causes to many
tenants. I am going to say a few words—and I pledge myself not to speak very long—about the similar dismay that the prolonging of this temporary state of affairs for two years or more causes to tens of thousands of decent, considerate landlords. Nobody will say a word in defence of those slum landlords whose abominable doings have been quoted on the opposite side of the House, but everybody knows that the slum landlord is a very small minority of the landlord class.

Mr. BUCHANAN: No!

Sir C. OMAN: You know nothing about your country as a whole though you may know about Clydeside. But taking the majority of landlords over the whole country, I say that the landlords of England who are not concerned with slum areas are—as one of the smallest and humblest of them I wish to speak for them—terribly hit by this enormous prolongation of an unnatural state of affairs. When Dr. Addison first produced his Bill, I pointed out to him the hard cases which this form of legislation would cause among small landlords. He was good enough to inform me that "minorities must suffer," a reply that enraged me at the time and enrages me still. I wish to point out the way in which this prolongation of a temporary state of affairs works. There are, all over England now, a number of decontrolled houses and a number of houses which are still under the Act. Those which are still under the Act are, in many cases, now rented at rates very far below their value, and I will give a few examples which cannot be contradicted. Here is a case of which I know two examples: The invention of the motor has completely changed the value of houses in the countryside. Before the invention of the motor, houses rather remote from the railway station were very valueless. Houses which were let for long leases, e.g. 21 year leases, some 10, 15, or 20 years before the War, because they were remote from railway stations, are now rated at, and cannot get beyond, the valuation of the 1st August, 1914. Meanwhile, owing to the invention of the motor, these 871 to £100 houses, which were then let at rents which brought them under the Act, are worth now to the holder two or three times that rent, because they have ceased to be remote. I
am talking of houses with a number of acres attached to them, and outbuildings. I know of two cases where such houses were leased in 1893 and 1895, before the motor came into use, at extraordinarily low rents, simply because they were in those days remote. They are no longer remote, they are large eligible houses, and occupied at the present time by people who pay half what they ought to pay, simply because of this Act. The owners of these houses at the present time appreciate the fact that the invention of the motor has completely changed the value of houses in rural districts. These houses, as I say, are not in the towns, but some little distance from the towns and the Act has therefore, operated extremely hardly on everybody owning houses let on a long lease in the countryside.
The second point I want to make out is that the landlord has still no redress against the tenant who insists upon stopping in the same house, and lets it in detail to a number of sub-tenants whom the landlord considers to be too numerous for the house. The landlord cannot really compel the tenant to get rid of them. I know plenty of cases where the tenant is making money out of his sub-tenants far more than the rent he himself is paying. It is clear that when the restrictions are taken off, and we get back to the natural operations of political economy, all such abuses will be stopped. Meanwhile, not only does the tenant profit by overcrowding the house, but the landlord is accused of owning overcrowded property! I know cases where landlords have been in negotiation with tenants for fixing a permanent rent, and where the latter have broken off the negotiations, frankly stating that, "As we see that our present rents are now going to be continued for a few years longer, we desire to break off negotiations that have been opened: we are going to enjoy the advantage of the Rent Restrictions Act for another two years." By starting negotiations with the landlord the tenants admitted that they knew perfectly well that the houses were worth more than the rent the landlords were getting. There is here, undoubtedly, a real grievance of the landlord, and if the Government goes on continuing this system and putting cm two years, and two years, and two years, that grievance is apparently to become
permanent. Everyone concerned and affected by War legislation, the railway companies, the bakers, and others are now free from it—all except the unfortunate small landlord. I beg the Government to try to remember that he, too, is not an undeserving being.

Mr. FENBY: In taking part in this Debate I desire to suggest that in my opinion the primary duty of the Minister of Health is to provide increased shelter, and that the provision of increased shelter will make less necessary the continuation for other two or live years of a Bill like that which we now have before us. In face, however, of the hard facts with which we are acquainted, there is no hope that very speedily, at any rate, that increased shelter, which we all agree it is the primary duty to the Minister to -supply, will be provided as quickly as we should desire. That being the case, it seems to me that the second primary duty of the Minister is to give increased security. There is a good dead of nervousness. I should like to emphasise that as being the representative of a City constituency. I am continually having appeals as to what is going to happen in regard to the Rent Restrictions Act. Another thing that is pointed out to roe—if I may say so with all respect—for it is a point of view with which I entirely agree—is that the question of the pro—vision of new shelter by way of new houses or greater security by the extension of the Rent Restrictions Act clearly are tot party political questions, and are not subjects merely for debating points. The people in my constituency, I take it, are typical of other City constituencies, and what they want is the provision of houses. They are not concerned as to what party may have the credit of providing them. They are only concerned that they may have the increased shelter.
We have had the Conservative Government, and we have had the Socialist Government dealing with this matter. I take it that the country, and I sincerely hope every Member of this House, is concerned, first of all with the fact that this question is a great human question dealing with the welfare of the men, women and children of the country. I should like to go back to an earlier point, and to appeal to the House and to the Minister in particular, to continue the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Acts
of 1920 and 1923 for a longer period than that mentioned in the Bill now before us. After all, these questions and other similar questions are a legacy of the War, end we have to deal with them on the highest possible grounds that we can do. I am sorry that the Minister of Health is not present, for in reading the opening sentences of his speech on the beginning of this Debate on the Second Reading on 11th March I was sorry to see, and I repeat it, that he went out of his way to be unduly provocative to hon. Members sitting above the Gangway on this side of the House. That is something we ought to avoid if we possibly can. If I may say so, the party with which I am associated has set a good example in that respect in trying to be civil to the other parties in the House. As I say, I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman went out of his way, and I would repeat the appeal to keep this matter clear of party, because, after all, whatever aim we have in this matter and towards solving of this very difficult problem, certainly it is the bounden duty of every Member of this House to assist all he can. I was sorry to see the Minister made another remark on 11th March, and that was to the effect that, provided the period mentioned in the Bill before the House was not long enough, that the Act could be brought under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I say in the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health that that is going to increase the insecurity that people feel to-day with regard to shelter. I should hope that the Minister will strike out of his programme altogether any idea that after 1927, or whatever the date may be, that the Act is to come under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I would suggest rather that we should have a definitely period of a lengthy character. What would please me most would be that the period should be sufficiently long that it would remove it far beyond the next election. Then there would be no opportunity for any hon. Member to make election points, or from the point of view of the candidate who says: "If you give my party the opportunity we will see that the thing is done." We have the opportunity now. We are not seeking any electoral advantage at the present time. It is our duty to put this matter far beyond any pos-
sibility of dispute even at the next election.
There is another feeling, that of insecurity, to which I wish to refer. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir H. Slesser), speaking a while ago from the Front Opposition Bench, said something about the lack of understanding of and the lack of information about the actual provisions in the legislation we have passed in regard to rent restriction. I could give one or two instances on this point, and illustrating what I mean by insecurity. The one is the case of a boarding-house keeper at the seaside, and there are scores of instances like it up and down the country. Before the Act was passed his rent was £60 a year, and he felt reasonably secure. After the 40 per cent increase was allowed by the Act it took him outside, so he thought, and he has since feared that he might be turned out at any moment. I am informed that that is not so. Yet some of these implications of the Act are not well known. There seems to be no authoritative information officially on the subject, and there is a feeling of insecurity. I want to appeal to the Government that the only remedy in these matters is to increase the number of houses, so as to do away with the feeling of insecurity as to shelter. I should like the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health to take a long view, and to extend the terms of the Act to a much longer period than at present proposed.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Fenby) who has just sat down, for I feel that to reply to what he has said is quite safe in the hands of the Government. I propose to take up a different point of view, and that is the point of view made in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) when he spoke on this matter on 11th March. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not here, but no doubt hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite will be able to advise him of the points I raise in regard to his statement in reference to the bank rate and the financiers. The right hon. Member for Shettleston replying to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health said:
He knows that within the past fortnight one of the greatest difficulties towards
solving this problem has been put in his way by the bankers of the City of London. He knows, as probably no one else in the House knows, that the raising of the bank rate by one per cent. means an addition of something in the neighbourhood of £3 per annum to the annual rents of the small dwelling houses which it is his business to provide, and that in fact by that stroke of the pen the financiers of the country have put a burden on new houses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1925; col, 1374, Vol. 181.]
I will endeavour to explain to the right hon. Member for Shettleston that it is not the bankers of the City of London and it is not the financiers who really raise the Bank Rate. The Bank Rate was raised on the 5th March, after it had been at 4 per cent. since August, 1923. To understand the real meaning of the raising of the Bank Rate it is necessary to realise what the international money market is, because the raising of the Bank Rate is dependent to a very large extent on the international money market of the world. There are really only two international money markets, one in Great Britain and one in the United States of America, or perhaps I should say in London and in New York. New York, as hon. Members may remember, had a financial crisis in 1907, and after it she re-organised her financial banks and created what were called Federal Reserve Banks. The real organisation had not been completed when war broke out, but to-day it is completed. In each of the big cities of the United States of America there is one of these Federal Reserve Banks, which control and regulate the money in those cities subject to supply and demand. Previous to the raising of the Bank Rate the rate in the New York Federal Bank was 3 per cent., in Boston 4 per cent., in Chicago 5 per cent. The New York Federal Bank raised its rate to 3½, per cent. on 26th February, and that raised our rate here. Why? The New York rate was raised simply on account of supply and demand, and if the senior Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell) were here, I think he would agree with me that the New York rate should never have been at 3 per cent. Money in New York was always 3½ per cent., and if it had remained at 3½ per cent. we in this country might have got through with the Bank Rate at 4 per cent., at which it stood prior to being raised to 5 per cent. on 5th March. It is a question of supply and
demand, whether in the United States or in this country.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston may say "Why should we raise our rate here?" The world is really a financial unit, and we are dependent on outsiders. We have here the Bank of England rate and the money market rate. We are not dependent on the financiers of the City of London to regulate that rate, it is a question of supply and demand. The bank rate was raised to 5 per cert., but the money market rate is below that; at the present time it is about 3¾ per cent. to 4¼ per cent. Let us remember that the New York bank rate is a minimum rate, whereas ours is a maximum rate. It is the money market where the chief business in money is done, through the joint stock banks, the discount houses, the bill brokers, the Stock Exchange, and the merchant bankers; they regulate the money market, and anybody who deals in money must understand that they get it literally at the supply and demand rate, which is not subject to the financiers of the City of London. I have no brief for the financiers of the City of London, and I only say this because, when. I heard the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston, I was flabbergasted to think—

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): I think the hon. Member is getting rather remote from the Bill.

Sir F. WISE: I was only endeavouring to reply to the right hon. Gentleman, and it is very hard to reply unless one realises that the financial position in regard to money is a world unit What will be the effect if the rate has not been raised? In an article in the financial columns of the "Times" it is stated that it is estimated that there is from £30,000,000 to 235,000,000, and up to £40,000,000, of American money in this country. If the bank rate had not been raised, that money would have left this country, and what would have been the position of housing then, what would have been the position of the right hon. Member for Shettleston's Housing Act.
If the bank rate had not been raised, I contend that housing would have been even more costly than it is at the present time. There would have been a crisis. We have had crises before in this country. In 1847 we had what was called the
"potato crisis," because of a famine in Ireland. Why was this? Because we had to send bullion abroad to pay for our commodities. These crises appear most suddenly, and when they are least expected. We have lad other crises since then, and if the bank rate had not been raised I contend that we should have had a crisis in the money market through the flow of money from this country to America, and in that way our reserve would have gone down and our liabilities would have gone up. The exchange would have gone against this country, and everything would have been more chaotic and more expensive than it is at the present time. We know that a large amount of material for houses is bought abroad. What would have been the position? It would have cost more to buy bricks in Belgium, because of the Tall in the rate of exchange. If the right hon. Gentleman had realised the position as the financiers of this country realised that they have not got the control which he thinks they have, I feel confident he would never have made that statement.
There is another hon. Member who is very anxious about the bank rate, and that is the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. W. Thorne). He referred to it in a question recently, and in supplementary question stated that, he had read an article by a man who knew all about the money market and the bank rate, and mentioned the name of Major Barnes. I have nothing against Major Barnes, I know him, but he is not a financial man—he is an architect. There are certain people who are not in finance who seem to think that if they have a shilling in one pocket and a rouble in the other they understand international finance. I wish the hon. Member for Plaistow when he is in a difficulty with regard to the, bank rate would consult the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), from whom he would get good advice. I think it is absolutely wrong for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston to say that it is the bankers or financiers of the City of London who control the bank rate; it is simply a matter of supply and demand.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I should like first of all to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General for the absence of my right hon. Friend the
Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), who is unavoidably absent from this Debate. I have listened to this Debate to-day, and on the previous occasion when this Bill was under discussion, and I have not heard from hon. Members opposite any real defence of the Bill. The Minister of Health's speech was a plaintive plea for accepting the line of least resistance. He did not even pretend to believe that the Rent Restriction Acts were satisfactory, indeed, he believed *hey might with advantage be amended, but he said "Let us leave things as they are, let us do as little as we can." This is virtually a proposal for continuing things as they are now, whilst the stealthy process of decontrol is allowed to go on side by side with it. The right hon. Gentleman says, "If at the end of the period when the Bill expires there is still need for a further measure of control, the Bill is so drafted that it can be continued under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act." He did not say it would be continued; he said it was so drafted that it could be, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, in his speech, regarded that as an obviously desirable and reasonable way of dealing with the matter. It may be true that to put it in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill at the end of two-and-a-half years is better than nothing, but it is a most unsatisfactory and not at all a desirable way of dealing with it. We know very well that if it is in that Bill there can be no amendment of it, and the chances are that there will be no real opportunity for discussion, and as one of the hon. Members for Glasgow pointed out, we shall perpetuate the, uncertainty which now prevails in the minds of both landlords and tenants.
The Parliamentary Secretary attempted to make a debating point by referring to the Housing Bill of last year, and he was subjected to a little interruption from this side. His point was, that because the rents to be calculated under tin-Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, were to bear a relation to existing rents, therefore, the Government last year regarded that level of rents as being perfectly satisfactory. That, of course, is not the case. It is perfectly obvious that if we have to calculate rents for houses built under that Act, they must be calculated with regard to some
standard of existing rents, whether we approve of that standard or whether we do not, and it would obviously have been impracticable to say that the appropriate normal rents shall not be the rents now prevailing but the rents that might prevail at some future time. It was perfectly clear to the House last year that my right hon. Friend, who was then Minister of Health, never by any words of his admitted his belief that 40 per cent. was a reasonable increase, for he has always held it was unreasonable.
6.0 P.M.
I think I have heard all the speeches made by Members of the Conservative party in this Debate, and taking them all together I think they indicate a deplorable state of mind in the Conservative party. There has not been one whole hearted speech in support of the Bill from hon. Members opposite with the exception of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. Obviously they do not want the Bill, and they would like decontrol to come instantly. Hon. Members opposite believe not only that the 40 per cent. is not too high but too low, and they would like to get rid of every shred of control, and they are looking forward to the day when that will happen.
We have heard something about the Minister of Health and his large majority, but surely he is dragging into the Lobby hon. Members who are really unwilling to go with him so far as this Bill goes. The Government is compromising one of its most vital principles. The logical course for the Government to pursue would be to abolish control of rents altogether and let the free play of competition and the law of supply and demand operate for a period of years in order to fill the pockets of the landlords and those who build houses. The facts, however, have been far too strong, and this theory of abolishing control which is so strongly held by the Members of the party opposite has to be pushed into the background because of the absolute necessity under existing circumstances of doing something to regulate rents, evictions and so forth.
The Government and the previous Conservative Government, and indeed all Governments who have had to deal with this question on general lines, have lacked the courage to take the full logical steps for dealing with control,
and the result is that we have now the unsatisfactory proposal which is in front of us, and which is neither real control nor a cessation of control. We have had from the Minister of Health no explanation as to why he has chosen a period of two-and-a-half years for England and three years for Scotland, which seems to me to be an injustice to England. Why two-and-a-half years? The Minister has never explained this point. Last year in this House the Minister of Health said that
this period of control, if it be extended, should be extended long enough to make it unnecessary to extend it again.
Those were the words he used last year. Is the right hon. Gentleman now fulfilling that good advice which ho offered to others in the Bill that is now before the House? I feel confident in saying that there is no Member of the House who believes that at the expiration of the period fixed by this Bill there will be decontrol of houses. Our view is that there should be control so long as the tenant is virtually tied to his present house, and so long as there is no alternative accommodation for him of a reasonable kind; that is to say, the tenant should not be driven, as he is to-day, to choose between the house he has now and one that is probably worse or as bad. He should have a reasonable choice, and then there will be some real freedom for the tenant.
As things are at present, the so-called alternative accommodation, whenever it arises is for the most part accommodation of the kind which is as bad as, or perhaps worse than, the accommodation he has at the present time. There is no reason to believe that at the end of two-and-a-half year's time there will be any prospect of tenants being able to leave the houses they are in to-day if they so wish. All this is borne out by the particulars from nearly all our large towns of the number of applicants for houses. Since the passing of the Act of 1920, where applications have been received the figures go to show that from that time to this there has not been such a decrease in the number of applicants for houses as to warrant us in believing that in the next two-and-a-half years they are going to vanish, and result in a normal situation. Many figures could be quoted to this House. We believe that the period
ought to be longer than two-and-a-half years.
As regards the question of rents, that subject has already been raised by several hon. Members on the Labour Benches. No attempt whatever has been made by the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to justify the continuance of the 40 per cent. increase. Many reasons have been adduced why that 40 per cent. should be reduced, and no case has been made out for the policy of no change. It is admitted that in 1920 the costs were higher and wages were relatively higher. The situation to-day is far different, because the costs are down and wages are down very substantially.
The argument is that the cost of repairs is still substantial, and yet it is generally admitted that the landlords are not carrying out the repairs they were required to carry out by the law of the land. During the election a leaflet was circulated by the Conservative party, and one of the items in it was moderate rents. The rents which now obtain, even if they were moderate in 1920, are at present excessive, having regard to the fall in prices, and to the serious impoverishment that has taken place amongst working people. The Act of 1923 inaugurated a system of decontrol by the back door. It was unfair because of the plight of the tenants. The learned Attorney-General, speaking on the Bill of 1923, said, in reply to a speech from this side:
The hon. Member for Seaham was, however, quite right when he said that one result of this Bill would be that houses would be decontrolled more quickly than if the 1920 Act had continued unamended. They will be decontrolled very quickly and that is one of the strongest arguments in our view in favour of the Bill.
What has been the effect of that Bill? So far as I know, the Minister has not got the necessary information. The right hon. Gentleman quoted a letter from a surveyor during his speech in moving the Second Reading of the Bill which at least throws some light on this question, because the surveyor whose letter he read pointed out that one effect of the Act of 1923 was that it had been instrumental in bringing "a large number of houses into the market to be let." How many have been decontrolled? Apparently the Minister does not know what are the
rents of the decontrolled houses. The Minister does not appear to know except in a few isolated cases.
The rents of houses that have been decontrolled as a result of the Bill of 1923 throw a little light upon the reason why decontrol is so urgently desired by hon. Members opposite. In Bradford I am informed where houses have been decontrolled "the rents have practically been doubled." In Bristol "the rents have been inflated enormously." In one case, writes a correspondent from Bristol, it came to my notice that a house has been let at 17s. per week, which was 4s. 6d. pre-War. In Manchester many similar increases have taken place. Mr. Ernest Simon, who was a Member of this House in the last Parliament, writing in one of the monthly journals last year, referred to a return which had been made by the overseers in Manchester from which he gave "specimen cases of decontrolled rents." Mr. Simon quoted the cases of "seven houses which on a change of tenancy have come out of control, and in these cases the net rents paid for these houses vary from 84 per cent. to 195 per cent. of an increase above pre-War rents as against the permitted increase of 40 per cent. for controlled houses. The average increase for the whole of those seven houses was 136 per cent. or more than three times the increase allowed under the Rent Restrictions Act."
I have had numerous reports from other centres of population as to the effect of automatic decontrol on the rents of the houses. Since I came into this House to-day I have heard of a house in the constituency of the learned Attorney-General which was let at 22s. a week, which has now been taken on a seven years' lease for £1,700, plus £100 premium. In the constituency represented by the Minister of Health there are cases of houses where the rent has gone up to an amount which suggests the grossest form of profiteering. I am informed that there is a house in Anglesey Street, in the Birmingham district, where the controlled rent was 8s. 6d. and the rent of that house now is El per week, and the tenant has to do his own repairs. In the same district I am told there is a house in Carpenter's Road where the controlled rent was 7s. 6d. and the decontrolled rent is 15s. per week, the tenant having to do the repairs

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Can the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether there are any sub-tenants in those houses?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I will give the hon. and gallant Member some particulars about sub-tenants in a moment or two.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: The examples which the hon. Gentleman has given to the House are perfectly useless unless he can say that there are no subtenants in those houses.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The tables from which I am quoting, I understand, apply to working-class houses of the smaller type. I have some eases where there is sub-letting, and I will give those figures to the House in a moment. I have a case at Bartley Green where the rent of a controlled house was 6s. 6d. and the decontrolled rent is 16s. per week. Hon. Members opposite have always shown a tenderness towards sub-tenants which they have never shown to other Tenants. If there be any grievances with regard to sub-tenants, why does the right hon. Gentleman not do something for them in his Bill? We should be very glad if he would do something in this direction. There is no doubt whatever that there is profiteering on the part of tenants who sub-let. Let that be admitted, and we would not defend it. I have particulars from Birmingham of a number of houses, but I will only give one or two cases. In one case the rent paid to the owner of the house is £90 15s. per year, and he receives, on the pretext largely that they are furnished rooms, £319 16s. per year. This is a 12-roomed house, with 12 families living in it, where the main tenant is paying about £7 10s. per room as rent, and where he is extorting from the sub-tenants a rent of about £26 15s. per room. In another house, where the main tenant is paying a rent of £33 5s., he is receiving, from those who live in the house, £185 18s. per year. If that be injustice, I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to have done a little more than bring in merely a continuation Bill, and I hope hon. Members opposite, whose hearts are so full of the troubles of sub-tenants, will support us in the Lobby in their interests.
The truth is that hon. Members opposite are a little over-anxious to get rid of control. They were too previous.
before, and they are again. The Parliamentary Secretary—I am reading this from a report—in a paper which he read at the Law Society's meeting at Leeds on the 26th September, 1922, said:
Parliament should as speedily as possible repeal the Statute dealing with rent restrictions entirely, but should continue to afford certain protection till, say, 1924, while making various curtailments and modifications with the object of terminating the whole Measure in that year.
That was the view of the Parliamentary Secretary two years ago. He was wrong, and he has had to come forward this year, with the Minister of Health, with a Measure for a further 2½ years. He will be wrong again. The Minister of Health, speaking in support of his Measure of 1923, said:
Unless control comes to an end, private enterprise will not function freely.
That, it seems to me, is what really lies behind the minds of members of the Government in bringing in this short-period Bill. They are allowing their doctrinaire individualism to trample on the interests of masses of working people.

Mr. HOPKINSON: What about doctrinaire Socialism?

Mr. GREENWOOD: There are no worse doctrinaires than doctrinaire individualists. There are no doctrinaire Socialists; the doctrinaires are to be found among those people who rigidly adhere to principles which are becoming no longer applicable to modern conditions. They are anxious to bring back again perfect free play of competition in house building and in house letting, and to reestablish private enterprise; and they are prepared to do it hastily, even though, apparently, it may mean some injury to working people. I would ask the Minister of Health whether it is not possible to broaden the basis of his Bill. The Prime Minister—I quote from a Conservative leaflet, No. 2507, which is a large number—said:
When the Unionist party is returned to power, one of fie first duties of the Minister of Health will be to review the whole rent situation in the light of existing circumstances.
I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman has come to the House with a Bill with-cut having considered the whole rent situation, with a desire to take the least possible trouble over what is, undoubtedly,
a very difficult situation. Nobody would be more pleased than I if I never heard the words "rent restriction" again. I dislike the subject. It is a difficult subject; it has been a worry, I feel quite sure, to the right hon. Gentleman and to everyone who has ever had anything to do with it. But, at the same time, it is so absolutely indispensable for the comfort and the amenity of working people, that I think we have a right to ask that, so long as present circumstances continue, so long as there is a possibility of their continuing, so long should we legislate, and legislate in a generous and whole-hearted fashion; and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it is not possible to be a little bolder and a little more courageous, and not to confine himself to the narrow, small point of mere continuance of his Measure.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, when he introduced this Measure a fortnight since, expressed an expectation that the opportunity would be taken by Members opposite of explaining to the tenants, from whom they hope one day to obtain votes, how much more they are their Friends now than they were a year ago when they were in office. My right hon. Friend has not been disappointed. I have listened to the Debate, both on the last occasion and this afternoon, and I think that one of its remarkable features has been that, so far as I have noted, there has been no one who has been able to speak against the contents of the Bill. A number of hon. Members have spoken in favour of some other Bill, but there has been no one, certainly on the Opposition benches, who has ventured to say that the proposal which we make is not a right one in itself, although there may be others which they would desire in addition.
We heard on the last occasion, from the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), praise of his suggestions for the compulsory hiring of empty houses—a foster-child for which he has more than the affection of a natural parent. We heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) an attack upon those whom he described as the public robbers, by which I understood him to mean the Bank of England, because they had raised
the Bank rate; and the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to assert, without any calculations to prove it, that 1 per cent. on the Bank rate was the samething, as regards increasing rents of houses, as a 50 per cent. increase of wages. No expert can even understand what possible figures the right hon. Gentleman can have in his mind. So far as any competent person is able to judge, the rise in the Bank rate has not affected by one farthing the cost of building houses, especially houses of this character, which are financed largely by loans under Local Loans Acts, and which are financed at exactly the same rate to-day as they were three weeks ago. But per- haps the right hon. Gentleman did not think it necessary to give figures for experts; his appeal was to a wider public—to a, public which does not quite understand what the Bank rate is, and which is easily persuaded that it is being unfairly treated, if the assertion is made with a sufficient show of authority. It was, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman's contribution to that good will of which we heard from the Opposition benches this afternoon.
We have heard this afternoon from certain Members from Glasgow. We often hear from Members from Glasgow on this subject. We had a sympathetic and careful speech from the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division (Mr. J. Stewart), and a characteristic speech from the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen)—I am sorry he is not here to hear me answer him. We learned from the first of these two speeches that Glasgow was so mismanaged by its City Council that the Council had wholly failed in its duty of trying to provide more houses. That speech ought to have been made on the proposal to extend the boundaries of Glasgow a fortnight ago. We heard that the property owners in Glasgow were so much better off than they were before the War because their rents had been increased by 40 per cent. and because there were very few empty houses. I did not notice any reference to the number of people who will not pay any rent at all in Glasgow, which may, perhaps, make rather a different result in their balance sheet.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Clydebank is not Glasgow.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Fortunately, Glasgow is not Clydebank yet. But I am anxious, as far as possible, not to discuss the particular local conditions in Glasgow, for the reason that, as the House knows, there has been, and is still, I think, sitting, although the evidence is concluded, a Commission of Inquiry to ascertain the facts and make recommendations with regard to the condition of affairs in that area.; and I think it would be a pity to make their task more difficult by venturing to discuss those peculiar local problems until we have their findings and their recommendations.
From the hon. Member for Camlachie there came what he described as an appeal to my right hon. Friend. In fact, he called it an appeal several times; but it was rather the appeal of the gentleman with a, pistol than the minister of the Gospel. We were told that, if we did not respond to the appeal, there would be, he would see to it, such an agitation as had never been known, and the people would be roused to a sense of their wrongs and to taking violent measures to redress them. So powerful was the. hon. Member, so convincing in his description of the injustices which were being committed. so dramatic was his picture of the unfortunate tenant for whom no repairs were done, but from whom the full increase of rent was exacted, that he misled my hon. Friend the Member for South Salford (Mr. Radford), who followed immediately with an appeal to the Minister of Health that power should be given by this Bill to the County Court Judge, if the tenant found that the repairs were not being done, to suspend the increase of rent. May I reassure my hon. Friend? If he looks at the Act of 1920, he will find that precisely that power is given in Section 2, and if he looks at the Act of 1923, he will find that it is extended so that, instead of the tenant having to make an, application, under the existing law, if any action is brought by the landlord to try and enforce the increase of rent, the tenant can raise by way of defence the fact that the repairs for which the landlord is liable have not been done. So that the position which the hon. Member for Camlachie induced my hon. Friend to think requires rectification has been completely covered during the last five years. [Interruption.] I am trying to deal with argument and not with interruption.
Then came a speech from the late Solicitor - General. He confined his speech to an appeal for the simplification of these Rent Restriction Acts. I think he was almost the only speaker who developed that Clause in the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston moved. I rather gathered from his speech that the right hon. Gentleman had not himself been very sure what the Clause meant, and that my hon. and learned Friend had to listen to the speech of the Minister of Health in order to find out what it really did mean. The illustrations which the hon. and learned Gentleman gave did not, to my mind, carry that conviction which he anticipated. He told us that there had been 37,000 eases in the last year, in which at least 23,000 orders for possession were made, if I followed his figures correctly, and he said there had at the same time been 31 appeals to the Divisional Courts. I wonder in what class of litigation it can be said the appeals average something like one-tenth of 1 per cent. of the cases. It would seem to indicate, if those figures are right, that so far from simplification being needed in these Acts, they have reached a stage of certainty which very little of the law can entertain and, in fact, he knows, I am sure, as I do, that the only effect of altering a thing which has been the subject of repeated judicial consideration will be to induce the Courts to say, Parliament must have meant to make a change in the meaning since it has used a change in the language, and it would provide a very useful income to a large number of members of the junior Bar in assisting the Judges to understand what that change meant.

Sir H. SLESSER: That would not apply in the case of consolidation.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If there was mere codification and consolidation without change of language that would not apply, but then there would be no advantage, because you would not be changing the words. But if, on the other hand, you are going to simplify the language, which is, as I understand, the proposal, that presumably means to alter it, and the moment you alter the language you will produce a flood of litigation in order to ascertain what the words mean. We have a striking instance of that in the Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1906, which altered the 1897 position and which, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows so well, was invaluable to the Bar but was not quite so gratefully received either by employers or by workmen.
There came also a criticism, from, think, mainly the benches on this side of the House, against the proposal to allow the provisions as to mortgages to continue unaltered. I should like to say for myself that I regarded that appeal with a considerable amount of sympathy, because I know there are cases where it has been impossible to wind up estates as quickly as they should have been by reason of the fact that the mortgages could not be called in, but there are two considerations which, in my judgment, and I think in the judgment of my right hon. Friend, render it inadvisable to make the alteration that is suggested. The first is that, although it true enough that mortgages can be raised at a fairly reasonable rate, I think it is at least doubtful whether it would be easy to replace mortgages on weekly property, certainly on restricted weekly property, and, secondly, my hon. Friend will realise that if once we commence making alterations in these Acts in either direction it would be quite impossible to resist applications to make alterations in other directions. The result is that, if you once opened the floodgates, you would produce an immense volume of discussion and an uncertain amount of change, and you would do a very great deal of harm to the interests of those who have house property to deal with, and of those who have to live in house property of this description. So that reluctantly I say it has been deliberately the view of the Government that any change would be inadvisable, and the only practical way of dealing with the situation is merely to continue the existing law for a limited period, but to do it in such a way that if it should unfortunately be necessary we can make a further continuation later on.
Then there was a speech by the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. Fenby) who protested against the provocative language of the Minister of Health. I think it is almost the first time I have heard my right hon. Friend described as provocative. I wonder whether the hon. Member heard the speech from the right
hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettle-stone or the speech of the hon. Member for Camlachie when he regarded the language used by the Minister of Health as provocative. He was anxious that the question of Rent Restriction should be removed from the sphere of party politics—a most pious wish. I wonder if he could persuade the other Opposition to share it. He expressed the desire that the extension should be for more than the two and a half years which is proposed so that, as he said, the question should be taken beyond the date of the next election. I can understand that hon. Members sitting on the Liberal benches have always rather an unhappy recollection of what may happen to people who have to make election promises about controversial topics, and it may well be that Liberal Members would be anxious that there should be as few memories as possible aroused at election time. But it is not from the point of view of elections that we are trying to deal with this problem. We are trying to deal with what we regard as a real and immediate need, and we are trying to deal with it in a way which will do the least harm and the most good to those whose interests we are trying to preserve. We have been faced in this House with attacks for things we have not done. We have been faced outside the House with all sorts of misrepresentations as to what we are proposing to do. Far instance, although no hon. Member on the Socialist Benches has suggested that there is anything wrong in this Bill except that it does not do enough, we find in the Socialist Press this sort of headline:
Tory Measure to extort cash from Workers.
That is the "Daily Herald." I understand I rightly describe it as a Socialist organ. It goes on to give what is described as an interview with Mr. Mardy Jones, M.P. The hon. Member made a speech on the last occasion, but he never made any of the statements contained in this interview. I hope this is only an instance of how little one can rely on the accuracy of the Socialist Press:
Interview with the 'Daily Herald' by Mardy Jones, M.P. This Bill will put millions of pounds of extortion money into the pockets of the host of unscrupulous landlords.
I give that as an instance of the sort of misrepresentation which is designedly made by newspapers, at any rate outside the House of Commons, in order to mislead the tenants whose votes the Socialist party one day hope to cater for, because whatever else is clear, this Bill cannot put one farthing or cash into the pockets of any landlord, scrupulous or unscrupulous. If this Bill does not become law, as we hope it very soon will, the only result will be that after 30th June next rent control, as we know it to-day, will cease and landlords will be able to raise their rents. The object of this Bill is to continue the existing control for at least two and a-half years, and s, to prevent such a raising of rents; and, therefore, it is a wicked misstatement to say that the Bill will put millions of pounds of extortion money into the pockets of the landlords or that this is a Tory Measure to extort cash from the workers.
The late Under-Secretary for Health challenged the party to which I am proud to belong on what he called their inconsistency. Said he: "They do not like control, they believe control is a bad thing, and therefore they ought not to vote in favour of this Second Reading." In a measure the hon. Member is right. I do not like control. I think it would be far better if our housing conditions were such that control was not necessary. But I recognise, my right hon. Friend recognises, and my party recognise, that in existing conditions some measure of control is necessary until the housing problem has been more successfully overcome and there is nothing illogical in our saying at the same time that we regard control as a mischievous thing that ought to be stopped as soon as it properly can, but that until the existing housing shortage has been dealt with it is impossible to get rid of that mischievous control. That is the attitude of the Government. Assuming that one is right in saying that control ought to be ended as soon as it properly can, but that it cannot be ended until the housing problem has been dealt with, how ought one to approach the question of decontrol? Hon. Members opposite have, with one accord, made an attack upon the Government because of the provisions in the 1923 Act., which they did not alter when they were in office, under which gradually such houses as came back into the possession of the landlord ceased to be controlled.
That is a matter that has been considered by Committees. There are probably between five and six million houses in England and Wales which are within the control limit. Supposing there is not gradual decontrol. Supposing at a given moment—I care not whether it is a soon moment or a distant moment—the whole of this five or six million houses are suddenly to be decontrolled. Could anybody imagine anything more calculated to cause disaster or mischief to the interests of the tenants and to cause a tremendous amount of disturbance and unrest, than the fact of all these houses suddenly coming into the possession of their landlords, and the tenants, or a very large proportion of them, receiving notice to quit? Is not the right way to approach the problem of decontrol to try to bring it about gradually, so that there shall be as little displacement as possible? Is it not the right way, if you are to bring it about gradually, by seeing that it only takes place in the ease of houses where there is no tenant, because the house has fallen back into the possession of the landlord, without any eviction? Obviously, in these cases there can be no eviction of the tenant, because there is no tenant to evict, no displacement and no disturbance. It is true that a great deal of decontrol is slowly going on. So far from being ashamed of it, I am proud to think that so practical a means was discovered by my right hon. Friend in 1923.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: Does the right bon. and learned Gentleman regard the rents that are being charged for these decontrolled houses as reasonable? Does he approve of them? Is he proud of them?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: As far as I have been able to ascertain, and we can only ascertain from inquiries—I think my right hon. Friend explained the matter to the House last week—in a, very great majority of cases there has been very little alteration in rent when the house has come out of control. May I give the hon. Member particulars from Bradford, in regard to which we happen to have a report. The, report we have had from Bradford is this—we are asked not to give the names of those who report to us, but they are most reliable people—
As far as social workers are concerned, those with whom the reporter has come into contact have no cases of abuse on the part of the landlords to report.
In a further letter the reporter says:—
I have inquired, unofficially, from the overseers here, who tell me that cases of asking exorbitant rents for de-controlled property are few and far between: The practice of putting such property up to tender is on the increase. Social workers in close touch with the people have no knowledge of hardship resulting from this practice,
The hon. Member also referred to Manchester. He quoted what he described as specimen cases put forward by Mr. Simon. Again, we happen to have a report from Manchester, and the report is that the specimen cases are anything but specimens, if by specimen is meant fair samples, but that they are exceptional cases, picked out, and do not in the least represent what is going on in Manchester. The hon. Member was good enough also to refer to one house in my own constituency. If I took down the figures correctly, he said that it was a house let at a week formerly, and that it had now been taken for seven years at £1,700, plus £100 premium. I am very glad to say that, the working classes of Marylebone are an industrious and thrifty lot, but, unfortunately, they are not able to take houses at £1,700 and to pay £100 premium for rent. I cannot help thinking that the house to which the hon. Member referred cannot be regarded as a typical working-class dwelling. Possibly it may be one of those houses which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is very anxious to look at, which open between 12.30 a.m and 6 a.m.
It has been said in several quarters that the existing law is not being properly enforced, that there are complaints as to landlords not doing repairs, as to factors not complying with their statutory obligations, and as to houses being let at exorbitant rents. I would like to point out that if it be true, that is not a matter for legislation. It is a matter for executive and criminal action. I do not believe that the cases are quite as frequent as may be imagined, although I have no doubt they exist. I hope they are not quite as frequent as is sometimes suggested. I would like to assure the House that at the beginning of this year, after consultation with the Minister of Health, I made arrangements with the Director of Public Prosecutions to try to find cases in which the penal provisions of these Acts were being infringed, with
the intention, if such a ease was brought to our notice, of taking up the matter as a prosecution by the Director himself, so that publicity might be given both to the existence of the penalties and to our determination to enforce them.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Will the right hon. Gentleman do something to deal with the question of repairs? Will he actually define what is meant by repairs, so that it will be made clear that they include painting and papering of houses, which work was always recognised before the War as requisite repairs?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not think that is the point wtih which I was, dealing. What I was endeavouring to tell the House was, that I am very anxious, and that my right hon. Friend is very anxious, and we are determined as far as we can to see to it that the provisions of these Acts shall be observed. We have not only taken counsel together, but I have discussed the matter with the Director of Public Prosecutions, and I have caused communications to be sent to a number of County Court Judges, in districts where these cases are most likely to arise, in order that if there come under their notice in the course of eviction proceedings or the like any cases of apparent breach of these Acts, they may be reported to Richmond Terrace, and proper proceedings may be instituted. I hope the House will realise that although this is not a matter for legislation, the enforcement of the law is a matter with which we are dealing, and which we intend to deal with to the utmost of our power.
It is not true to say that it is always the unscrupulous landlord who breaks the law. There are, I think, at least as many cases of unscrupulous tenants who sub-let at exorbitant rents, but whatever class it may be, be he the ground landlord or be he the sub-lessor, if a case is brought to our notice which we can establish, I should like to assure the House that there will be no lack of readiness in the Government and on the part of the Director of Public Prosecutions to put the provisions of the law in force. It may be that to hon. Members of this House particulars of cases may come. If any such particulars are received as far as England and Wales are concerned, I should be very grateful
if any hon. Member will give me the necessary particulars, and I will undertake to have the matter looked into and, if a case arises, to have the criminal law put into effect.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Will the right hon. Gentleman take cognisance of the case I suggested, and define the word "repairs," so that repairs shall be deemed to include papering and painting? At the present time, the proprietors do not fulfil the requirements of the law if painting and papering were regarded as within the definition of the word "repairs." As they are not so defined, they are not being recognised.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Definition is always rather a dangerous thing. It is sometimes apt to act in the direction of exclusion rather than inclusion. There is already, as the hon. Member knows, a provision—not so much under these Acts but under the Housing and Working Classes Acts and so on—which makes it necessary for the landlord to put houses of this character into a condition of habitable repair, but that is a matter which the Courts have to construe. Certainly, it does not arise under this Act

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: That is not the point.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is not a case which we can discuss to-day. So far as to-day's proceedings are concerned, we are confronted with a situation in which the hoped-for increase of houses has not taken place. Hon. Members opposite say confidently that it is no good extending this Act for two and a half years in this country or for three years in Scotland. One hon. Member criticised the difference in the terms, but he will find, if he asks some of his Scottish friends, that the terms are different as regards Scotland, because May is the appropriate month. Hon. Members say that it is no good extending the Act for two and a half or three years because the housing shortage will not he overcome then. If all that we are looking for is a continuance of the existing rate of increase of houses, I agree with that argument, but I hope that is not all that we can look for. The hon. Member for Camlachie said that many eloquent speeches had been made at the last Election by members of the Conservative party about the housing shortage, and he
said, dramatically, "We shall have to go back and tell the people that this is all that the Government are going to do." This is not all that the Government are doing or are going to do. This Bill is not intended to cure the housing question. This Bill is continuing an admittedly unsatisfactory course of legislation until the housing question is by other means overcome.
We have to stimulate by every means in our power the existing means of house building. We have, I hope, to discover and develop other means of house building which will supplement the existing means. We have to see to it that the whole resources of the country are brought into dealing with the housing problem and getting the houses at the earliest possible moment. We have to do it not necessarily by force but, rather, by that goodwill which has been referred to

more than once in the Debate this afternoon. I hope and believe that the efforts of the Government in the direction of house building are going, increasingly, to overtake the housing shortage, and I think it would be an unwise thing for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health now, when everything is uncertain, to fix a date for the continuance of this BM, a date which might perhaps prove to be far too distant, and not to be sanguine that by the goodwill of both sides and united effort in all parties the housing difficulty may be overcome far more quickly than at present seems likely to be the case.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 281; Noes, 131.

Division No. 61.]
AYES.
[7.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Christie, J. A.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Grace, John


Albery, Irving James
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Clarry, Reginald George
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grotrian, H. Brent


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Astor, Viscountess
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cope, Major William
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Couper, J. B.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Hanbury, C.


Balniel, Lord
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Harland, A.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Harrison, G. J. C.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hartington, Marquess of


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Haslam, Henry C.


Bennett, A. J.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hawke, John Anthony


Bentlock, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Bethell, A.
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Dawson, Sir Philip
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Blundell, F. N.
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Drewe, C.
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Duckworth, John
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hilton, Cecil


Brass, Captain W.
Ellis, R. G.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Elveden, Viscount
Holt, Capt. H. P.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
England, Colonel A.
Homan, C. W. J.


Briscoe, Richard George
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. [...].
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Mewb'y)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Fenby, T. D.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Burman, J. B.
Fermoy, Lord
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Fielden, E. B.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Caine, Gordon Hall
Fleming, D. P.
Huntingfield, Lord


Campbell, E. T.
Forrest, W.
Hurd, Percy A.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Hurst, Gerald B.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Fremantle, Lt.-Col- Francis E.
Hutchison, G. A. C.(Midl'n & Peebles)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Gates, Percy
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Jacob, A. E.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Jephcott, A. R
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Nuttall, Ellis
Smithers, Waldron


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Oakley, T.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Owen, Major G.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Pennefather, Sir John
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Penny, Frederick George
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Lamb, J. Q.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George B.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Perring, William George
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Philipson, Mabel
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Pilcher, G.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Loder, J. de V.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Templeton, W. P.


Looker, Herbert William
Power, Sir John Cecil
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Lord, Walter Greaves-
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Lougher, L.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Tinne, J. A.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Radford, E. A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Raine, W.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Remer, J. R.
Waddington, R.


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Remnant, Sir James
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


McLean, Major A.
Rentoul, G. S.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Rice, Sir Frederick
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Macquisten, F. A.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Wells, S. R.


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Ropner, Major L.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Margesson, Captain D.
Salmon, Major I-
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Meller, R. J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wolmer, Viscount


Merriman, F. B.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Womersley, W. J.


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sandon, Lord
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Morris, R. H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Wragg, Herbert


Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl (Renfrew, W.)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Nelson, Sir Frank
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)



Neville, R. J.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES-


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)
Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Skelton, A. N.
Harry Barnston.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
March, S.


Ammon, Charles George
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Montague, Frederick


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Groves, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Grundy, T. W.
Murnin, H.


Barr, J.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Naylor, T. E.


Batey, Joseph
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Palin, John Henry


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hail, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Paling, W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Broad, F. A.
Hardie, George D.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Bromfield, William
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Potts, John S.


Bromley, [...].
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Ritson, J.


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hirst, G. H.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Cape, Thomas
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Rose, Frank H.


Charleton, H. C.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Clowes, S.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Scrymgeour, E.


Cluse, W. S.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Scurr, John


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sexton, James


Compton, Joseph
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Connolly, M.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kelly, W. T.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kennedy, T.
Smillie, Robert


Day, Colonel Harry
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Dennison, R.
Kenyon, Barnet
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Duncan, C.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Dunnico, H.
Lansbury, George
Snell, Harry


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lawson, John James
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gibbins, Joseph
Lee, F.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Gillett, George M.
Livingstone, A. M.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Gosling, Harry
Lowth, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William
Stephen, Campbell


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mackinder, W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Greenall, T.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Sutton, J. E.




Taylor, R. A.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)
Welsh, J. C.
Windsor, Waiter


Thurtie, E.
Westwood, J.
Wright, W.


Tinker, John Joseph
Whiteley, W.



Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Wignall, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Varley, Frank B.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Viant, S. P.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Warne.


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)



Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The following Instruction, stood en the Order Paper in the name of Mr. CLYNES:
That it he an instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to insert provisions continuing the application of the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, to all dwelling-houses to which that Act now applies, and to amend the provisions in that Act relating to permitted increases in rent.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I desire to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, about the Instruction, having regard to the course now taken on the Second Reading of the Bill. The Title of this Bill shows the intention simply to prolong the present Increase of Rent and Mortgage (Restrictions) Act, 1920, for a further period of two years. You will observe that the House has just disposed of an Amendment which complained that the Bill did not amend the law in various directions, and I venture to suggest that, by the rejection of the Amendment, the House adopted the principle contained in the Bill, namely, that the provision of the 1920 Act should simply be extended for a period of two years. If you look at the Instruction on the Paper, you will observe that it is in a way a repetition of the Amendment of which the House has just disposed, and asks in other words, that the Committee on the Bill should have power to insert two provisions which are referred to in that Amendment. I venture to submit that an Instruction which would be contrary to the decision of the House taken on the introduction and the Second Reading of the Bill is not within the due province of an Instruction. In other words, the Instruction on the Paper is in direct contradiction to the decision the House has just taken. I also venture to submit that the Amendments which the Instruction proposes to sanction must be such as would confirm the general
purposes and intention of the House with regard to the appointment of the Committee. In other words, the House has just expressed by its majority that they assent to the principle of the Bill simply to extend the duration of the Act for two years. In the third place, I venture to suggest that an Instruction is bad which seeks to substitute another scheme for the mode of operation described in the Bill. I think it has been made abundantly clear both on the former occasion and to-day that the scheme of the Government is to extend the provisions of the Act for two years without any alteration whatever. This Instruction proposes to put forward another scheme altogether, under which certain alterations would be made or at least could be made by the Committee. I, therefore, ask whether you will give your ruling on the three points that I have raised. I venture to submit on those three grounds that the Instruction is not in order.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid I cannot uphold any of the three contentions of the hon. Member. What the House has just decided is that the words "now read a Second time" should stand part of the Question. Thereupon the Bill was read a Second time. The rather lengthy wording of the Amendment does not supply me with any reason for refusing this Instruction. With regard to the second point raised, it is the very purpose of an Instruction to do something which would not be otherwise within the powers of the Committee. Had it not been so, I should have ruled the Instruction out of order as being unnecessary. The third point is that if the matters in the Instruction be cognate to the Bill, and also that the Instruction itself he necessary, then those two facts make the Instruction a regular one.

Mr. CLYNES: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to insert provisions continuing the application of the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, to all dwelling-houses to which that Act now applies, and
to amend the provisions in that Act relating to permitted increases in rent.
I shall offer no comment, Sir, on your ruling, but I am sure that if the point raised by the hon. Member (Sir K. Wood) had prevailed it would at least have prevented the House from even expressing an opinion in the form, first, of discussion, and, second, in the Lobby of the House of Commons, on the scope within which the Committee should deal with this Bill, when the Bill reaches that stage.
I shall make but few observations in submitting this Instruction, for I understand that a number of hon. Members desire to address the House before a Division is taken in the course of an hour's time. The object of the Instruction is to give the Committee power to consider Amendments on two very material points. These points are most germane to the Bill, and they might be ruled out of order in Committee for aught we know, without the Instruction which I am now moving. The first point relates to the provision in Section 2 of the Act of 1923, under which, if a house to which the Act applies becomes vacant, and the landlord thus regains possession, that house becomes decontrolled. This provision does not apply if the previous tenant has been ejected for non-payment of rent, or if there has been an exchange of tenancy with the consent of the landlord. But it is certain that very many working-class houses have become decontrolled under the operation of this Section, and the landlord is thus in a position to charge whatever rent he pleases or to secure whatever rent he is able to get. Therefore, personally, I think that the time has arrived for a revision of these permitted increases in the amount of the rent, and that this is a question which should go to the Committee in conditions in which the Committee shall have full freedom to deal with these matters.
I would suggest to my right hon. Friend who, probably, in Committee will have charge of the Bill, that narrow as the Bill is, it offers to him some opportunities to effect a real and helpful bit of social reform, about which we heard so much from the platform during the last Election. The Act of 1920 allows, roughly, increases of rent up to 40 per
cent., 25 per cent. being for repairs and 15 per cent. on account of post-War prices. It is common knowledge that, even if the repairs were carried out to-day, they would not cost 25 per cent. of the rent. But, as a fact, they are not carried out, and every speaker who has addressed himself to this subject with experience of the situation in his constituency has been able to speak with a great degree of authority, and to declare that landlords who are receiving the permitted increase are not spending it in the manner which the law intended.
It is true that if the tenant can get a certificate from the local authority that the house is in a state of disrepair he can withhold the 25 per cent., but as is well known, again by experience, tenants are in such a condition of fear of doing that, and are so apprehensive of the enormous amount of trouble to which they may be put and of the risk of being ejected for non-payment of rent, that most tenants would rather pay, and submit to the inconvenience of having a house in bad condition than undergo these risks. I received this afternoon from Birmingham a communication on this subject, a portion of which I will read, especially because it comes from the quarter with which the right hon. Gentleman is so honourably associated. This communication is from the Birmingham and District Tenants' Federation, and I will read that part of it which seems to have a definite application to the point which I am arguing. It is a communication which asks that Section 2 of the Act of 1923 should be rescinded, and it goes on to say:
We beg to point out that the uncertainty of that Clause has led to much abuse and, in the majority of instances, increases of 100 per cent. are being charged, and many instances of 250 per cent. can be cited by various societies in this city, and in addition the great abuse of the privilege of charging key-money makes it impossible for those who are unable to pay it to obtain any house.
That is from Birmingham, from a specially created organised body, speaking with perhaps less freedom than an individual with some grievance. Therefore, I suggest that it should be looked upon as having a certain weight, coming from the quarter from which it does come. The Attorney-General more than once in his speech to-day, as on other occasions, referred to Members on these benches as speaking loosely on this question in the
hope of catching votes by what they say. But hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should be the last to say that sort of thing. I therefore draw attention again to the definite official declaration of the Leader of the Conservative party, the present Prime Minister, prior to the last election, in which he said that if they were returned to power they would review the whole rent situation in the light of existing circumstances. Language could not be plainer. This is a special opportunity for that review, and, in view of the urgency of the claims, and the difficulties of the tenants, I allege that the Government are neglecting their chance and failing to honour their own statements which were made at the last election.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I desire to support the Motion. I do so for two reasons. First, we ought—the industrial system being as it is—to place no obstacle in the way of the mobility of labour. I am satisfied that you will not be in the position of enabling labour to be transferred from one place to another, and helping to deal with the unemployed problem in this way, if you are going to allow houses which are controlled to-day to become decontrolled because of the transfer of those men who are unemployed in one district to another district to get employment there. The very fact that we have unemployment so great to-day justifies this instruction. Merely because of unemployment we may be decontrolling two houses at the one time, and placing obstacles in the way of two men actually, shall I say, endeavouring to remove from one district to another because of the danger of having a materially increased charge made for rent.
Most of the arguments for and against this Bill have been repeated several times, and I will not repeat them now. But my second reason is one which has not yet been dealt with. The Act of 1920 permits the landlords to increase rents for three reasons. First, because of increased charges they were to be Allowed to get a 15 per cent. increase. Then for the purpose of meeting charges in connection with repairs they were to get a 25 per cent. increase, and lastly, for the purpose of meeting an increased charge in connection with rates they were to be entitled to charge the difference in rates between 1914 and 1920. I was a member
of a Committee that considered a. Private Member's Bill upstairs, and among ail parties it was agreed that the Act of 1920 did not propose to make permanent the increased charge for rates in connection with the increase in rents in 1920. In my own town there has been a reduction in the rates of approximately 1s. in the £, but under the 1920 Act the increase was 1s. 6d. as compared with the figure for 1914. When that increase is taken into account, the total increase in rent is not 40 per cent., which has been the whole defence on the other side, but 47 per cent., which was due to the fact that there was an increase of 1s. 6d. in the rates as compared with 1914. There has been a reduction now of approximately 1s., and this Instruction will give the Committee the opportunity of discussing this point.
The view was expressed by all parties that the Act of 1920 did not propose to make permanent that is. 6d. increase in rates so far as the particular district to which I am referring is concerned. I believe that it would be the almost unanimous wish of all parties to allow an Amendment to go through in accordance with this Instruction which would make the increase in rates chargeable to the tenant, so that you should not continue the increased charge based on the figures for 1920 instead of on the figures for 1925. I trust sincerely that the Government will meet us on this point, so that we may be able to deal with this question of increased rates, and that only the increase which exists in 1925 or 1926, as compared with 1914, shall be chargeable, instead of the increased rates existing in 1920.

Mr. JOHN JONES: I was very much interested in the speech of the learned Attorney-General this afternoon, when he talked so glibly about the legal position. He never semed to understand the working-class position. It is very nice to tell workers that they have certain rights under the law, but it is a very different thing to show them how they are going to achieve those rights within the law. The question was put to him by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) as to what was meant by repairs, and we discovered the most extraordinary fact that there is no definition of repairs. The house has got to fall down before it can be repaired. The things that really matter, so far as the working-class tenant
is concerned, are the painting and cleaning of the house and the paper-hanging. Yet it is almost impossible to get those repairs done.
What is the good of telling the working-class occupants in a district such as I represent that they have certain rights under the law. How are they going to enforce the law? Even the town council find themselves in difficulty, and so do the public health committee, when they take action, until we find we are led up from one set of lawyers to another. Probably the Bill has been drafted with the idea of finding work for the unemployed of the legal profession. [HON. MEMBERS: "There are not any!"] There never are. They look after themselves so well, and I do not blame them for that, and I only wish the working-classes looked after themselves equally well. The existing Act is not operating at present. I could show you in my own constituency case after case of people who are paying 100 per cent. more than they paid before the War. Whether they are sub-tenants or original landlords, they are profiteers whoever they may be. What protection has the ordinary workmen in a working-class district None whatever. All your laws and Regulations cannot do anything when we come up against the real problem.
I hope, therefore, that this instruction will be carried, so that we may be able to give the tenant some protection. There are those who assume that 21 years from now the problem will be solved. The problem never has been solved. In 1881 I read a book by the late General Booth, "Darkest England and the Way Out," which showed that at that time one-third of the population were living in overcrowded conditions. It is the same now. The problem will not be solved as long as hon. Members who are now in this House live. The first interest in this matter, as far as I can understand the Debates that I have heard on these two occasions, is that the landlord comes first and the tenant comes last. Private property is the god and public interests are secondary. We, therefore, want some protection for the people. If you say that later on, in 2½years' time, you are going to extend the Bill, what is the good of it? You may extend it.
Of course, you can build naval bases, and you do not ask where the money is to come from then. There is no question about the landlord when naval bases are under consideration. We can spend money like water when expenditure is necessary to defend the interests of those in authority. It would pay us better to house our people than to build naval bases in preparation for still greater wars in the future. No, you have to make the worker pay, and an increase in rent can always be demanded. The argument of supply and demand is brought forward. What is it? Who controls supply? We have to ask, and you have the power to give. The demand is the workers' demand, and it is a demand for decent conditions of living. You have the power to supply that demand. How do you supply it? With brick boxes with slate lids. Now you are going to provide us with tin boxes, and sardine openers to open them. We want houses. If tin boxes are good enough for the working classes, they ought to be good enough for other people. Let Lord Weir live in a tin box. The working classes want decent houses.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I do not know whether the Minister of Health is going to oppose this instruction, but if so I would like to know on what ground. He will not maintain that the Act of 1923 is satisfactory. He will not maintain that there are not very many hardships occasioned by it, and I am sure he will not maintain that experience has not shown that it requires amendment. I could give him many instances, but were I to do so we should have a general Debate on housing. I will mention a particular case. It is the case of a woman who was in possession of one of those certificates from the sanitary authority stating that her house was not habitable. This was supposed to prevent an increase in rent. The woman was not accustomed to dealing with the law, and she was receiving stately forms from the factor demanding increases in rent. She was told that she would be put into Court unless she paid them, although she had been for some time in possession of the certificate I have mentioned. Of course. I told her that, so far as I knew, she could not be taken into Court for the increase in rent. But at the same time she was entitled to have the house put into a decent state of repair. Then the landlord said: "I cannot put
the house into a state of decent repair unless you go away, and I am not prepared to find you any other place to which to go." The state of the house must have been bad if the woman had to go before it could be put right.
I mention that case merely as an example, and not in any hitter or controversial spirit, to prove to the right lion. Gentleman the difficulties, grievances and hardships which exist under his old Act. Then what is the reason for preventing this Committee of the House examining it? Is the right hon. Gentleman afraid that it will not stand examination? Does he want to prevent reform taking place, if reasonable reform can be shown to be necessary'? I cannot. understand why he should stand in the way of this general inquiry. Now there is a danger, if we do not get this instruction, of the present state of affairs being perpetuated. The Bill, it is true, goes on for only two-and-a-half years, but it is drawn in such a form, as the right hon. Gentleman himself pointed out when defending the Bill, that it could be put into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and carried on from year to year. That means, assuming that its continuance is necessary, that at the end of that time it will appear as an item in a schedule, and we shall have no opportunity of discussing it, and no further occasion but this will present itself for dealing fully with a matter which requires the attention of this House and of all who are interested in the housing of the people. For these reasons I and many of my Friends intend to go into the Lobby in support of the instruction.

Colonel DAY: In considering the Rent Restrictions Act, it is well to keep in mind that there are and must be two points of view, one the owners point of view, and the other the tenant's. Meantime it is worth while noting that house property is the. only form of wealth at present controlled by the Government. All other forms of wealth or production that came under control owing to war-time conditions have been released. I do not propose to take up the time of the House by going into the details as to why it is necessary to continue the control of house property, for if there is any Member who is at present unaware of, or who does not appreciate, the housing conditions in this country, I am afraid that he will never
appreciate them, and it would be a waste of time discussing the matter with him. Let us consider, first, the property owner's point of view and his complaint of control. We must, of course, admit that he cannot do just as he would like to do with his own property. But let us consider what are the hardships, if any, from which he is suffering. So far as I can see, the only supposed hardship is that he is unable, owing to the Act, to take advantage of the people and to demand the utmost rent. Personally, I think that the present rents are not only excessive, but also the utmost that can be obtained, owing to the high cost of living and the comparatively low earning power of tenants, who are mainly working-class tenants. We hear many tales of owners' hardships owing to the high cost of repairs and low rents, but my opinion is—and I have good reason to form it—that the cases are carefully selected and do not reflect in a true way the general position of the property owner.
For example, let us consider the price of property in 1913–14, and the owner's prospect of getting a reasonable return for his money. At that time it was possible for a tenant, if he did not agree to the landlord's demand, to remove, there being other houses to let. Consequently, there was competition, which had the effect of keeping down income from property and also the value of same. The working-man's house in a city like Manchester, with accommodation consisting of a parlour, kitchen, scullery, and three bedrooms, could be purchased for, apporximately, £150 to £200. The price asked to-day for a, house with similar accommodation is from £500 to £600, and the house is in a far worse condition. Therefore, the first thing worth noticing is that the capital value of the property has increased by about three times the original value, and it is enriching the property owner without any effort on his part. It is common knowledge that money invested at 5 per cent. compound interest—

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that that is hardly relevant to the discussion which we, have now reached. The discussion must be confined to what is within the scope of the Instruction.

Colonel DAY: I was trying to give comparisons of the positions of owner
and tenant at the present time, owing to the enormously increased burden that is put on the tenant by the 40 per cent.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Instruction covers only the difference between 1920 and the present time. That is the point.

Colonel DAY: Does it not cover the 40 per cent. increase that is to be put on the tenant under this Act?

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes; it raises the question as to whether the 40 per cent. that was originally established is relevant to the present time, but it will not be in order to go back to 1913–14.

Colonel DAY: The most noticeable point of the Act is the 40 per cent. increase allowed to the owner. I ask hon. Members opposite if any one of them can get up and truthfully say that property owners as a general rule are keeping houses, especially the smaller houses, in a proper state of repair. We know that they are not. We know that they are taking advantage of the conditions and forcing the tenants to pay for decorations and repairs. We know that they are draining every penny that they can get out of the property, and absolutely refusing to carry out the common understanding that they should do the repairs, because they realise that the tenant has no choice. Even in Southwark I know of many instances where the landlord has charged incoming tenants of very small and deplorable cottages £5 and £6 as key money for houses that were in a disgusting condition. During the last Election I visited in the main street many houses that had not had a coat of paint on them, inside or out, or a piece of paper, or any distemper, since long before 1914. These houses were in a deplorable condition. Some of them were overrun with vermin. I know that other constituencies are bad, but some of the houses in Central Southwark are as bad as anything that can be seen in England. I see some hon. Members smiling. It must be because they have not had any personal experience. If they had had the experience of some of the Members on these benches of living in these houses, they would realise the conditions. What the public want is that Members supporting the Government should face realities.
The position is that the Act gives the landlords power to extract 40 per cent. increase on the rent for repairs which they never do. Whilst I do not suggest that good landlords should be unjustly treated, I do suggest that the bad landlord should be penalised. This can be done by introducing a Clause into the Act, making it compulsory for the landlord to obtain an annual certificate from the local sanitary authority stating that the property is in a fit state of repair before he is allowed to charge the increase which has been specially permitted for that purpose. Further, I wish to state emphatically that the amount allowed to the landlord for repairs, if he executes the repairs and decorations necessary for ordinary small property, is an excessive one. I have found this from my own experience. I happen to be the owner of a considerable amount of small property, and I know that these repairs and decorations should not come to more than 17 per cent. over and above the pre-War rental, after making all allowances. Originally, I made an increase of 30 per cent. instead of the permitted 40 per cent., but, when my agents submitted the accounts to me, and I discovered the true position, I gave them instructions to reduce all my rents to a figure 222 per cent. above the gross pre-War rental, thus giving to my tenants the benefit of 17½ per cent.—which, accordingly, was an excessive charge and one which I did not feel justified in taking, although the Act allowed me to do so. That figure includes all necessary painting and repairs and the outside painting of small cottages during that period.
At present the tenant has to obtain certificate that the repairs are not being done, but we all know that the average tenant of the working class has neither the time nor the ability necessary to get such a certificate, and it is only just and proper that the person who is receiving payment should be the person to get the certificate. It would be just as reasonable if a man were to sue me for a debt which I did not owe, for the court to ask me to prove that I did not owe it instead of asking the plaintiff to prove that the debt was owing, as to have the present arrangement in regard to these certificates. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make provision in the Bill that the 40 per cent. increase should not be enforced unless the landlord has obtained a certificate justifying the collection of the same.
Such an alteration would give a great, deal of satisfaction to millions of tenants and make them more content than they are to-day. They would then know that they were paying their money for something which they had got instead of paying as at present for something which they have not got. In reference to the interest charges—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] If the hon. Members who keep on shouting "Order!" would keep order themselves and allow me to proceed we should get on much more quickly. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are reading your speech!'] I know as much about property and about this question as some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite who interrupt me.
With reference to the interest charges, if the owner has a mortgage on his property then he has an additional profit froth this source over and above his own investment, and if he has a mortgage on his rental profit he has not cause to do anything but to congratulate himself on that point. The average property-owner, if he so desires, can sell his property and receive back his original pre-War capital with a profit which is equal to 10 per cent. compound interest, in addition to the annual profit. On the other hand, the tenant has been squeezed for extra payment for a worse article on account of having to pay the increased rent, and he is also obliged to do the repairs and decorations himself, knowing at the same time that these should have been done for him by the landlord. It is not just nor proper that the Government of the country should allow this state of affairs to exist, knowing as they do that the worker is helpless in the matter while the owner has behind him the organised Property Owners' Association. It is not an exaggeration to say that the extortionate rents demanded to-day represent one of the greatest cancers of civilisation, and one which is being neglected, though there is yet time for operation, and it is a disgrace to see how it has been allowed to fasten its tentacles upon the body of the nation.

Mr. VIANT: In rising to support this instruction, I venture to express the hope that the Minister of Health will not oppose it. The Committee which is to consider this Bill should be prepared to do so from the point of view of the anxiety caused by the question of
decontrol at the present time. A hope has been expressed for peace in industry. Experience has convinced me that if there be one thing which contributes to anxiety and makes it difficult to obtain peace at the present time, it is the possibility in the minds of the public generally of the houses which they occupy becoming decontrolled and of exorbitant rents being demanded. Those who have been engaged in trade union negotiations know that when such negotiations are taking place, the possibility of increased rents cannot be ruled out, and the possibility of decontrol means that the price of house property is going up by leaps and bounds. I have here an extract from a paper which circulates in the constituency which I have the honour to represent and in the area where I reside. It refers to house property, recently decontrolled, which, 20 years ago, when the houses were erected sold for £400 and £450 per house. It is now being offered for sale and the price asked for those houses, now that they are decontrolled, is £1,125 each. Houses of another class which were sold 20 years ago as new property at £375 and £400 per house are now offered at £925 per house. I hope the Committee when dealing with this Bill will take into consideration the effect of these inflated prices upon prospective tenants. Houses that have been decontrolled are bought at prices such as I have mentioned, and are let off in portions. I have cuttings from the same paper announcing three-roomed flats to let and the rent demanded in some cases is 19s., and where they have a bathroom and scullery a rent of 25s. per week is being asked. The result is that artisans, and working-class people in general, are becoming exceedingly anxious in regard to the rents which may be demanded from them as the houses are decontrolled and the rate at which houses are being decontrolled surpasses the expectations of the Minister of Health. The process is not proceeding slowly, but in some districts is proceeding very rapidly.
Another point which requires due consideration is that of the 40 per cent. increase allowed by the 1920 Act. The repairs are not being carried out. I know of one specific instance in my constituency where the rooms have not been done up for nine years. I know another case in which the ceiling of the bathroom fell 18 months ago and it has not yet
been replaced. Yet the increased rents are still being taken by the landlords, and I suggest that the Committee might take into consideration the fact that when the increase was permitted in 1920 the cost of repairs had increased by approximately 150 per cent., while the increase in the charge for repairs at the present time from 1914, would be approximately 60 per cent. Some consideration could be given to that matter in view of the fact that the majority of the occupants of these houses to-day have had their salaries or wages reduced. Decontrol is working in such a way that prices are becoming inflated all round; values are not increasing but prices are. The inevitable result is that occupying tenants are continually being called upon to meet increased rents which are inevitable if we permit Measures to go through this House enabling decontrol to take place and thus automatically increasing the price of property. On these grounds, I submit we are justified in asking the right hon. Gentleman to allow this Instruction to go forward to the Committee in order that they may consider the Bill from these various angles and endeavour to meet the case of the tenants in a spirit of equity and justice, so that anxiety may be allayed and the Prime Minister's desire for peace may be fulfilled.

8.0 P. M.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): The Debate upon this Instruction is really only a resurrection of that which has been carried on all this afternoon. The speeches which were delivered this afternoon by hon. Members opposite on the Second Reading of the Bill harped over and over again upon the very same points which are now in the proposed Instruction to the Committee, and I should hardly have thought it was worth while to add anything further to what has been said by my right hon. Friend the learned Attorney-General if it had not been that, perhaps, it might have been misconstrued as a discourtesy to my right hon. Friend opposite. I congratulate him on having found a way of getting round a problem which has baffled, I believe, generations of Members in this House, namely, how to get Amendments, which are outside the scope of the title of a Bill, considered in Committee. His
Instruction is, perhaps, not likely to be carried to-night, but certainly it does open up a prospect for future Oppositions of getting the better of Governments, who have hitherto protected themselves by measures of this kind, which is extremely interesting to us.
The real fact about this Bill, and about the Instruction, is that you have got to consider whether you will take the long view or the short view of the effect of alterations in the existing legislation. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we were not carrying out the pledges that were given during the Election by the Prime Minister, that the whole rent situation would have to be reviewed by whoever held the office that I now occupy. That suggestion is entirely without foundation. It is precisely what I have done. I have reviewed the whole situation, and, after reviewing it, after taking what I call the long view, and considering what was going to be the ultimate effect of making further alterations in the existing Acts, I came to the conclusion that the best thing to do was simply to prolong the Acts of 1920 and 1923 for a comparatively short period, in order that we might have a further opportunity of seeing what progress was made in housing. I recognise, as everybody recognises, that the ultimate factor to decide when rent control can be brought to an end is the overcoming of the shortage of housing accommodation, which is the only thing that has made this rent restriction necessary in the first instance. It would be, in my view, the greatest folly if, in order to remove any defects, any injustices, any inequalities created by this temporary legislation, we were to do something which would so hamper the operations of those who are trying to overcome the housing shortage, that we should postpone indefinitely the date at which we might get rid of control altogether.

Mr. CLYNES: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he thinks would have been the view of the electors had they been told, that by the review of the whole question, what the Government meant was merely this Bill?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I certainly will tell the right hon. Gentleman. The electors were told that the whole situation would be reviewed. They were not told what the result of that review would be.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] What is the use of a review if you have made up your mind beforehand what course you are going to take? The right hon. Gentleman has some experience of pledges to the electors. He has before now given definite, precise pledges to the electors, and it is because they found out how little reliance was to be placed on the carrying out of these pledges that, no doubt, to a large extent, the result of the last election was due. It is obvious that if you were going to enter upon a revision of the existing Acts, you could not stop short at this; you could not stop short at taking out two single items which might be open to criticism. You would have to try to do justice all round, and to deal with the points mentioned by other Members in the Debate. There is, for instance, the question of mortgages, which is an extremely important question, and one which, I think, if anything was to be considered, would have to be considered first. There is also the question of profiteering by tenants at the expense of sub-tenants, which is always so tenderly treated by hon. Members opposite. I have decided that the best plan is not to touch any of these things, because I see that if you begin by amending these Acts, you are going to have a series of new provisions introduced, a series of changes in the language of the old Acts, and that is going to lead to a great crop of new litigation, and create complete uncertainty in the minds of the landlord and tenant for a considerable period as to where they stand. To my mind that is the worst thing you could possibly have for the encouragement of the building of fresh houses.
Let me turn, however, to the two points on which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have touched. With regard to the question of decontrol, it is very easy to find individual cases where this provision has been abused. I said myself, on the Second Reading of this Bill, that cases of that kind have come to my notice. But the point we have to consider is, whether those cases are sufficiently numerous to justify us in making a special provision in regard to them which would cut across the line of our general policy? The right hon. Gentleman quoted the Tenants' Association as an impartial body in Birmingham, and in the communication which they addressed
to him I observe that they laid special stress upon the exaction of key-money. I know of more than one case where key-money has been asked in Birmingham by landlords whose houses have become decontrolled, but it is quite untrue to say that happens in the majority of cases. I happen to have here the rent book of one of the largest—perhaps the largest—property-owning companies in Birmingham, and I find they have put right across the rent book:
No premium of any kind is required, or allowed to be paid, in connection with letting, decoration or repair.
That is put upon the rent books issued by them, and I have seen similar notifications in rent books issued by other property-owning organisations. With regard to excessive rents, I think the hon. Member for Nelson (Mr. A. Greenwood) said that we had put up no case for allowing the present conditions to remain as they were. Surely, if he wants to alter them, it is for him to put up a case to show why they should be altered, and not for us to put up a case for a change. I submit that no case has been put up in this matter. On the contrary, it is certainly well known that it does not pay now to build or to manage working-class property, and a fortiori you would be still less likely to get people to invest in house property if the rents were reduced. And so it is that again and again hon. Members have fallen back upon the statement that the landlords are not doing the repairs for which excessive rent is allowed. I am not disposed to question that—I will not say as being universally true, but as being frequently true. I have too many cases in my own experience of landlords who have not considered what, I think, was their duty in the way of repairs, but I think the worst way to deal with that is to cut down rents, because if you cut down rents, you are not only hitting good landlords, but you are making it more difficult for the bad landlords to reform.
What you want to do, as I suggest, is what we have put in the Act of 1923, namely, that where a landlord does not do repairs that he ought to do, he should not be entitled to receive the increase of rent, and the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) gave the case of a tenant who had come to him. He had got the certificate which he is allowed to get from the local authority
under the Act of 1923, upon which he had taken no action, and the hon. and learned Member complains that we ought to give this Instruction to the Committee in order to meet the inability, or rather the unwillingness of that particular tenant to use the right which has been given by law. But if she does not use the rights she has got, what is the good of giving her more rights? Our difficulty with those people who have not had much experience of the law is to get over their fears and suspicions, and to induce them to utilise the powers we have tried to put in their hands.

Mr. MONTAGUE: May I put my own experience which is perfectly true—

Mr. SPEAKER: There is now no time for that.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no doubt all of us could give experience, but that will not help us to find a remedy. What I particularly desire to emphasise, is that the remedy is not to be found by cutting

down rents, but in strengthening, if we can, the penalties you put upon the bad landlord who does not do his duty. We have already carried the Second Reading of this Bill. There is no real demand for the tearing up of the old Rent Restrictions Acts and their replacement by a new Act, or we should not see the House in the state of emptiness in which it has been this afternoon. I therefore ask the House to reject this Motion, which is directed at the whole plan of the Bill I have introduced, and which the House itself has carried this afternoon by so large a majority.

Question put,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to insert provisions continuing the application of the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, to all dwelling-homer; to which that Act now applies, and to amend the provisions in that Act relating to permitted increases in rent.

The House divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 254.

Division No. 62.]
AYES.
[8.15 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring.)


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Riley, Ben


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Harris, Percy A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Barr, J.
Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Rose, Frank H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Henderson. T. (Glasgow)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Broad, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scurr, John


Bromfield, William
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sexton, James


Bromley, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smillie, Robert


Clowes, S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kennedy, T.
Snell, Harry


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kenyon, Barnet
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Compton, Joseph
Kirkwood, D.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Connolly, M.
Lansbury, George
Stamford, T. W.


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James
Stephen, Campbell


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lee, F.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Day, Colonel Harry
Livingstone, A. M.
Sutton, J. E.


Dennison, R.
Lowth T.
Taylor, R. A.


Dunnico, H.
Lunn, William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Mackinder, W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Fenby, T. D,
MacLaren, Andrew
Thurtie, E.


Forrest, W.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Tinker, John Joseph


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
March, S.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Gibbins, Joseph
Maxton, James
Varley, Frank B.


Gillett, George M.
Montague, Frederick
Viant, S. P.


Gosling, Harry
Morris, R. H.
Warne, G. H.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Murnin, H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Greenall, T.
Naylor, T. E.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Owen, Major G.
Welsh, J. C.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palin, John Henry
Westwood, J.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Paling, W.
Whiteley, W.


Groves, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wignall, James


Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Potts, John S.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Windsor, Walter
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Wright, W.
Allen Parkinson.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Ellis, R. G.
Lumley, L. R.


Albery, Irving James
Elvedon, Viscount
MacAndrew, Charles Glen


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
McLean, Major A.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Everard, W. Lindsay
Macmillan, Captain H.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fermoy, Lord
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Fleming, D. P.
Macquisten, F. A.


Atholl, Duchess of
Foster, Sir Harry S.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Frece, Sir Walter de
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Balniel, Lord
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Margesson, Captain D.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Gates, Percy
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Meller, R. J.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Merriman, F. B.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish.
Grace, John
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Bethell, A.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Betterton, Henry B.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gretton, Colonel John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Blundell, F. N.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Neville, R. J.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hanbury, C.
Nuttall, Ellis


Brass, Captain W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Oakley, T.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Harland, A.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Harrison, G. J. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Briscoe, Richard George
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Pennefather, Sir John


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hawke, John Anthony
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Perring, William George


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Pilcher, G.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Burman, J. B.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Walford)
Radford, E. A.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Raine, W.


Campbell, E. T.
Hilton, Cecil
Remnant, Sir James


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Holt, Captain H. P.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Homan, C. W. J.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ropner, Major L.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Christie, J. A.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurd, Percy A.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mc[...].(Renfrew, W.)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Cope, Major William
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Skelton, A. N.


Couper, J. B.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Jacob, A. E.
Smithers, Waldron


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Jephcott, A. R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Lamb, J. Q.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Templeton, W. P.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lader, J. de V.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Doyle Sir N. Grattan
Looker, Herbert William
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Drewe, C.
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lougher, L.
Waddington, R.




Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Warrender, Sir Victor
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wise, Sir Fredric
Wragg, Herbert


Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Wolmer, Viscount
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Womersley, W. J.



Wells, S. R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir


Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).
Harry Barnston.

Orders of the Day — COAL PRICES.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I beg to move,
That this House calls upon the Government to prosecute measures to prevent excessive charges for coal supplied to household consumers.
I could have wished that this Motion had fallen to be moved by someone who could command more influence over the House and, in particular, more influence on the Government. Of all the vexations which have afflicted the people since the War, that caused by the high prices charged for coal is, perhaps, one of the worst. Hon. Members who have paid visits to people who live on the poverty line in their homes know how an addition of threepence to the hundredweight or how, in the case of the middle classes, an addition of a shilling to the ton, causes great irritation and even suffering. Those also who have evidence, as I have, of some of the poorer districts of London, and of the care with which the small supply of coal, a hundredweight, is husbanded in the corner of the kitchen, know that any increase of price is to a large number of people a very serious matter. I believe that my Motion comprehends a trade and industrial use of coal, and indeed the development of the coalfields as well, but I do not intend to deal with that for more than about two minutes, and if I return from it quickly, it is not because I am under any delusion as to the operations and development of the coal industry and the industrial use of coal, but merely because on an evening like this, and myself moving a Motion of this sort, I should not hope for a full Debate.
While he is here, I want to ask the Secretary for Mines on this particular topic, whether he is fully alive to the intensely depressed state of the coal industry as a whole? I have been reading the trade supplement of the "Times," and listening to people who come from the coalfields, both owners and colliers, and indeed consumers. It seems to me that the state of the coal industry is appalling. We are passing from the use of coal as a fuel, and, as it seems to me,
while other nations are adjusting their conditions to meet that new phase we are doing absolutely nothing to meet it. What, for instance, is the Government doing to assist or to encourage the new methods of the low and high temperature carbonisation of coal? Until something of the kind is done we are losing headway in the world, and proceeding slowly, not only to a disgraceful condition for the mine-workers, but to unsatisfactory profits for the coalowners, and a general depression of the very life-blood of the industries of this country. I was reading lately a certain journal supposed to be one of the most respectable of Sunday newspapers, and the attitude of the Government was compared to that of the cow watching a passing train and doing nothing. I do not propose to pass that. on. I merely want to say to the Secretary for Mines that if he has any ambition in life at all, here is an opportunity for him to go down to history.
I now come to the principal topic of this evening. I am fully conscious of the responsibility that rests upon a Member of this House when he gets up to make criticisms on any class of the community. Nothing could be more opposed to the traditions of the House of Commons than for one of its Members, without adequate study or preparation, to level indiscriminate charges of profiteering or anything else against any section of the community. I hope I shall be absolved from that charge. At the same time this is a great evil, and it must be faced. Before I came here to-night an hon. Member came to me and said: "I see you are moving your coal prices Motion in the House; I am sorry for you. The Coal Merchants' Federation has had detailed information prepared as to costs, showing how much coal is at the pit-head, how much it costs for distribution, what profit they make, and they have put all this information into the hands of skilful Members on the other side. When you have finished they are going to get up and wipe the floor with you." This is not an occasion for rhetoric; and I hope to gets good deal of support from Members on
the opposite side, and indeed from all sides. I desire to dint with hard facts, and I do so both in the interest of the Motion that I am moving and also to save myself from being used as a floor-wiper by hon. Members opposite. I have not mentioned that, when the Coal Merchants' Federation or the Coal Industries Information Department circulated their description of their costs to hon. Members who are supposed to speak for them, they also sent a copy of it to me. I took that as a compliment; and also that they had inadvertently done so without knowing I was going to move this Motion to-night.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I take that document, that Publicity Handbook which has been issued by the Coal Merchants' Federation, together with the leaflet which accompanies it, and base my arguments on the facts given there, or the particulars set out there. The first point on which there is always a great deal of discussion, so far as the coal trade is concerned, is as to whether or not there is a coal combine or a trust which operates against the public interest. I am not at the same time attempting to level an indictment against the trusts as a whole. But this has been a subject of controversy, and before we approach the question in detail we might examine it to see whether or not there is a trust in this industry. It is a charge, by the way, that the coal merchants most vehemently repel. Last year Mr. Shinwell—who is no longer here—sent for the representatives of the coal merchants and subjected them to what, I will admit, was a vary close and searching cross-examination. I pay a ready tribute to the valuable information which Mr. Shinwell got from them. My only regret is that he did not follow it up by action. So far as that question as to whether or not there are trusts is concerned, I may be allowed to quote what one of the most representative of the powerful coal merchants said to Mr. Shinwell last year in reply to questions. It is to be found in Command Paper 2117, page 8—hon. Members have the paper—
If any of us round the table here, or any other merchant attending the market, feels that in his selling price the market is against him, or in his favour, whether it is up or down, he may come along and suggest that the public price requires alteration, either up or down. Probably he would mention it to Mr. Charrington, or to me, or
we might initiate it ourselves. If the merchants in general agree with that view, the price is put down or up according to the state of the trade.
Take again the Board of Trade Parliamentary Inquiry of 1915. I notice that when they quote, without attempting to prove, that there is no trust or combine, they always quote the first sentence of the findings of that inquiry and leave the rest alone. I may be allowed to quote the whole of it as there are only two sentences, and I do not think it will be detaining the House unduly. The findings of that Inquiry were:
We have come to the conclusion, on the evidence before us, that the high prices of household coal are not attributable to the existence of definitely constituted rings or close corporations among either the coal merchants or the colliery owners. But, as in some other trades, there are continual opportunities of conference amongst those chiefly concerned, at which, in fact, there is commonly concerted action in regard to prices.
A little later the same Inquiry's findings say:
A few of the leading firms decide upon the price which, without more ado, become the public prices for the next day, and are advertised next day in the newspapers.
That may be a Trust or not, but I think it is good enough—or rather bad enough—for the vast majority of the public who have to consider the question. Another argument which is brought up by the Coal Merchants' Federation, and given in their very clever publicity handbook, is a statement of their position in comparison with the position of co-operative societies. They print in black letters an admission by the Secretary for Mines in regard to the profits made by the co-operative societies. They say:
The Secretary for Mines was obliged to admit that so far as the figures go they seem to indicate that the co-operative societies, selling at the same figure as the merchants, make a larger profit than the merchants disclose in their analysis.
This is an attempt to show that the cooperative societies are making unduly large profits. On that point we have to bear in mind that in many cases the co-operative societies pay larger wages than the coal merchants—in many cases, I pay that tribute readily.

Mr. HANNON: You have to prove that.

Captain GARRO-JONES: The hon. Member is one of those who believe that
nothing can be stated in this House but what has previously been proved, perhaps, in a Court of Law. But all the facts I am quoting are easily open to him, or to anyone who will take the trouble to spent 10 minutes in the Library of this House. In addition to that, the co-operative societies, after they have made their profits, return about half of them to those who subscribe to their funds; and even when they have done these two things, returned some of their profits to their subscribers, that is, their customers, and paid equal or higher wages, they still have larger profits than the coal merchants who are supposed not to be making undue charges for coal. We also sometimes hear it stated that the Coal Advisory Committee in 1922 disposed of the allegation that there was any profiteering. The Coal Advisory Committee was very kind to the Coal Merchants' Federation in many particulars, but when it came to specific findings the Committee was obliged to make very plain statements, and this is one of them:
We are bound to remark that those responsible for the distributing trade should take immediate steps to render considerable reductions possible in most of the items. Railway and dock charges stand in need of immediate reductions.
That was the most concrete and substantial finding by the Coal Advisory Committee.
Before I go on to deal with the exact figures given by the Coal Merchants' Federation, I would like to remind the House of the more general figures. Coal charges are up by 100 per cent., cost-ofliving and wages charges are up by 78 per cent., railway freights, one of their principal charges, are up by considerably less than 50 per cent., and the price of illuminating gas to the consumer throughout the whole country is up, on an average, by only 50 per cent. All the constituent charges of these coal merchants, with the exception of the pithead price of coal are not up by more than 80 per cent., whereas the coal which they sell is up by over 100 per cent. I do not adduce that as in any sense a detailed argument, but it will serve as a preface to the more detailed points I am putting later.
I think I have approached the core of the problem. The core of the problem
is to be found in this pamphlet which purports to show how the charge for a ton of Derby Brights, delivered in Central London, is made up. There are only five items. Pit-head price, after allowing for smalls and deficiencies, 27s. 9d.; railway freights, including wagon hire, 11s. 11d.; wages of loaders and carmen, 4s.; cartage expenses, including sacks, 2s. 7d.; other distributing costs—it gives a list of items—3s. 8d.; present margin for profit and contingencies, 1s. 1d. The first item is the pit-head price, 27s. 9d. I regret to say that when a ton of any specific kind of coal is ordered, the person who orders it is by no means certain of getting the kind of coal ordered.

Mr. LUKE THOMPSON: I think the hon. and gallant Member has made a very serious charge there. Does he definitely say that the merchants deliberately send out a different kind of coal from what has been ordered?

Captain GARRO - JONES: That will be answered in the course of the information I am coming to. With reference to the inquiry just addressed to me by the hon. Member opposite, perhaps I may be allowed to read from an answer made to Mr. Shinwell during the inquiry last year, when one of the largest and most important coal merchants said, in reply to a question—this can be found in the White Paper—
There is a coal, bright house coal, which in normal times we supply as Derby coal, which the public like. At times like this we cannot get enough of that. I myself bought second-grade Northumberland coal. We had to sell it as bright house coal.

Mr. THOMPSON: At what price?

Captain GARRO-JONES: The answer continues:
We have to get the next best we can to the normal.
In a subsequent answer you will find he stated that, of course, he sold it at the same price as he would have sold the other. I could have quoted innumerable cases of consumers who have made these complaints, but I preferred to give it to the House out of the mouth of one of the largest coal merchants.
In the constituency I have the honour to represent here 50 per cent. of the coal is delivered by wagon from house to
house. We never hear about Derby Brights in that trade. In this house-tohouse delivery there are only two grades of coal, best coal 2s. 8d. per cwt. and nuts 2s. 7d. per cwt. I think I have said enough to show that when you buy the best you get the best, or the next best; the only thing that is always best is the price. It reminds me of some hon. Members with whom I have had the pleasure of playing golf, who possess high handicaps and rather light scruples. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I have not named the quarter of the House from which these Members come. When they take a card out they never put down a higher score than 9, satisfying their consciences with the mental reservation that 9 means "9 or over." It is the same with some of these coal merchants, I regret to say—"Best means best or next best."
The second important matter is that this 27s. 9d., which is stated to be the pithead price, is not always the price paid by the coal merchants for it, because they are able to contract forward. I do not complain about that, because it is perfectly legitimate, provided they do not charge too much for that service. They are able to contract forward, and they very often buy the very best Derby Brights at 25s. and 26s. per ton and even when it was cheaper they sold it at 27s. 9d. I think I have said enough to show that the price given in this statement is not a favourable guide as to the amount paid at the pithead compared with the price at, which the coal is sold at the doors of the consumers.
The next item I wish to refer to is "other distributing costs." That amounts to 3s. 8d. I do not hold any brief for the co-operative societies. I am as fully aware of their drawbacks and disadvantages as I am of their merits, but I want to point out that the items which cost the coal merchants 3s. 8d. only cost cooperative societies about 1s. 8d., and that shows a decrease of 2s. As I have already shown, the total cost of a ton of Derby Brights delivered in Central London is 51s., but that same coal is being sold on the outskirts of London at 52s. 6d., although the costs are no more than in the case of Central London. There is an ordinary household coal which is being sold at the present time at 47s. 6d. per ton which could be sold even on the estimate made by the Coal Distributors' Information Department at 41s. 3d. per ton,
and show a reasonable profit. It is in regard to this grading of coal that the coal merchants are marking a profit of from 70 to 100 per cent. per annum. On a turnover of just over £2 they made a profit of 1s. 1d. per ton, and that is about 25 to 30 per cent. per annum.

Mr. L. THOMPSON: At 51s.?

Mr. LANSBURY: Get a bit of chalk.

Captain GARRO-JONES: For the years 1923 and 1924 chartered accountants have certified the average net profits of six representative coal merchants supplying 50 per cent. of the London coal to be 1s. 7d. per ton. These chartered accountants do not say in their statements whether that includes industrial coal, because 1s. 7d. per ton profit on industrial coal is a very high rate, and there are many other people who are satisfied with a profit of 9d. per ton upon industrial coal. In working out all these costs no trader has ever been able to agree about the overhead charges, and chartered accountants do not see what goes on in the coal yard. They take the vouchers given to them, and if any particular coal merchant likes to allow himself £2,000 a year as a salary in addition to profits and a high rent for his sidings and his premises, the statement of the chartered accountants under those circumstances is not a very useful one.
So far as the railway charges are concerned, there are one or two serious grievances, but as I hope to be able to say something about railway charges on a subsequent occasion I will satisfy myself by making an appeal to the Secretary for Mines to do what he can in this matter. I have been encouraged to hope, after a study of the OFFICIAL REPORTS of last year, that I shall get a great deal of support for my Motion from a large number of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I know that the Secretary for Mines in the late Government was subjected to a constant fusillade of questions from this side of the House on this question, and the present Secretary for Mines, who is not of a very excitable temperament, became quite angry on several occasions with the Government for not dealing with this question. The present Secretary for Mines, addressing the previous Secretary for Mines, said:
Does the hon. Gentleman find it impossible to take immediate action to put
an end to what he has described as discreditable profiteering?
I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health present. He has had his reward for the great work he has done, and not the least of his activities was his constant criticism of the Secretary for Mines for not dealing with this question. In fact, he got tired of attacking the Secretary for Mines, and one afternoon he turned his attention to the late Prime Minister, and said:
Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Secretary for Mines has been very busy asking questions and is nothing at all going to happen as the result.
For these reasons I hope we shall find the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health giving us his support on this occasion. This question cannot be dealt with without treading on somebody's corns, whatever method is adopted. A suggestion has been made that these should be a system of registration of coal merchants. The inauguration of a proper system of grading and a co-operative system have also been suggested. I am not going to recommend any of those suggestions, but I will make one myself. I am not going to ask the Secretary for Mines to be precipitate in this matte!, but I ask him to do something before the winter ends. There is one thing, however, which I implore him not to do, and that is to set up a Royal Commission. Although we shall offend the susceptibilities of somebody whatever course we take, we shall offend public susceptibilities still more by taking no action at all.
My suggestion is that we might legalise municipal trading in certain circumstances in regard to coal. After all, many public authorities have a considerable experience of trading of various kinds. In the Division of South Hackney, which I represent, we have a monumental example of successful municipal trading. The Borough of Hackney electricity scheme supplies electricity at one of the cheapest rates throughout the country, and it pays considerable sums in relief of the rates. They have had a good deal of experience in buying coal and running business affairs. The coal merchants say that one of their greatest difficulties is the question of storage, but I would like to point out that local
authorities frequently have ample facilities for storage which the coal merchants may not be able to provide. This has been tried before by local authorities. I am indebted to the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. C. Wilson) for drawing my attention to the case of the Sheffield local fuel and lighting committee. They expended £22,124 in the purchase of coal at a time of shortage, and they sold it for £24,456. They considerably exceeded their costs, even after making allowance for charges, and I am assured, by those who made a close study of that experiment, that, if they did this without having any appliances, such as shoots for dealing with the coal, they could have made a very considerable profit if they had had it properly organised, as it could be if a Measure were introduced by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
I hope the House will not think I have kept them an unwarrantably long time. I want to be fair to the coal merchants and to the Coal Merchants' Federation. I know that they are human, and I do not believe in making unduly severe attacks upon anyone, least of all from this place of privilege. I do, however, feel that the public interest is challenged by these excessive prices, and I think something ought to be done immediately. The Secretary for Mines has all the facts necessary for action. We, who have only available the contracted scale of private information, cannot know nearly s, much about the matter as the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who has vouchers and complaints from consumers all properly filed. I think this question is ripe for action, and I hope hon. Members in every part of the House will unite to ask the Government to take immediate action to grasp this crying evil and to destroy it.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: I beg to second the Motion which has been moved by my hon. and gallant Friend in a speech marked by great ability and obvious sincerity. I regret, for many reasons, that the Motion is more or less confined to the particular question of excessive prices of coal to household consumers. There are other equally important and, from some points of view, more important, aspects of the question with which we should have liked to deal. There is the injury done by the high prim which is
charged for coal to industrialists. I have, as every hon. Member has, heard in this House very eloquent speeches from Members who have large commercial interests in this country, complaining of the burden which high taxation entails upon the trade and industry of the country at the present time. I should like to hear them speak with equal eloquence of the burden which is entailed upon industry by the high price of coal, as well as of other commodities. This is as much a form of taxation as any other form, and it is the worst form of taxation, because the product of it goes, not to the Exchequer, but somewhere or other into private pockets. I hope that those gentlemen who are so eloquent about burdens on industry will join us in pressing upon the Government our views on this question. Then there is the element which the coal industry represents in the foreign trade of the country, and this is also a matter on which we, should like to have some support, It is not because we were unaware of these other aspects of the question that we are not dealing with them now, but because we think that this limited question affords ample material for discussion in the limited time that is available.
9.0 P.M.
It is not necessary to enlarge upon the existence of the problem. It is only necessary to mention three sets of figures in order to carry conviction to any impartial person as to the existence of a very serious problem. Coal has been likened to a black diamond, and nowadays it is almost as expensive in this country. Some of these figures have already been referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend. Ire has referred to the figures which have been distributed by the Coal Merchants' Federation and the Coal Distributors' Association, in which they give the pit-head price as 27s. 9d., and the price to the consumer as 51s. I want to give some other figures, affecting; not London, but South Wales, because I think they are equally eloquent of the situation. There are some districts in South Wales where the total cost of production of the coal does not exceed 18s. per ton. There are places in South Wales where the average excess of the price which the household consumer has to pay is over 20s. as compared with the pit-head
price. I observe that in the statement which my hon. and gallant Friend has quoted it is suggested that the difference in the price is very largely due to high railway freights, but, in the towns to which I am now referring in South Wales, where that excess of over 20s. per ton exists, railway freights do not exceed 3s. 6d. or 4s. 6d. a ton.

Mr. WRAGG: Is that the average pithead price?

Mr. EVANS: I am talking about the average pit-head price of the coal and the average price to the household consumer. We deal with different kinds of collieries there and different kinds of coal, but that is the average price. I know a little about South Wales and about the collieries there, and there is this difference of over 20s. per ton, of which only 3s. 6d. or 4s. 6d. is accounted for by railway freights. There is a third set of figures to which I desire to refer, namely, the average wages in the collieries—the average wage of the men who actually produce the coal. I want to refer to these figures because I think they have relevance in the consideration of this question. I know it is very difficult to dogmatise on these figures, because I do not suppose there has ever been an industry in the history of the world in which it is more difficult to arrive at an accurate figure in regard to this matter. There seem to be so many grades and classes in the coal industry, each with its own particular rate of wages, that is very difficult to form a real estimate; and, despite all the negotiations which have taken place over a long series of years, this large number of grades apparently continues. Agreements have not withered and customs have not staled their infinite variety. I think it is fair to say, however, taking the miners as a whole all over the country, that their wage is about 10s. 5d. a shift; and I think it is also fair to say that the average production per shift is certainly less than a ton. Therefore, in the price of coal to the household consumer, the miner, who is so often blamed for the price of coal as well as for many other things, is only responsible, as regards his wage, for less than 10s.
Let hon. Members note the relevance of these three sets of figures, and let it be remembered that they are figures of facts,
and not figures of speech. Another matter to which I want to refer is this: As is apparent from the interviews which the late Secretary for Mines bad last year, as far as London was concerned, it is in the hands of a small body of men—some six, or eight, or ten—to decide whether there shall be an increase in the price of coal to household consumers; and I believe I am right in saying that daring last summer they found it necessary to increase the price of coal no fewer than five times. Actually, as my hon. and gallant Friend has said, the price of coal has gone up 100 per cent., which involves a charge to the industrial users of coal of about 70,000,000, and of about £17,500,000 to the household consumers. As I say, these are figures of facts. They are figures which do not so much speak for themselves as call out for people to speak for them and to speak in their defence and in their justification.

Mr. WRAGG: On a point of Order. Is it a fact that the wages in South Wales are 10s.? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]

Mr. EVANS: I am talking perfectly distinctly, and I was taking the average wage of the miners all over the country. It comes to 10s. 5d. If that is not right, it can be challenged, and if it is challenged there are several Members above the Gangway who can speak with greater knowledge and practical experience than I can. I should be very much surprised indeed if it can be justified that I am overstating the case. These are just a few figures and a few facts which indicate the existence of the problem, and the consumer wants to know why it is that there is this great difference between the pithead price and the price he has to pay. He wants to know; he does not know; he is entitled to know, and what we are asking the Government to-night is to assist us in ensuring that the customer shall find out. There are the documents published by the Coal Distributors' Association. I will say nothing about that except this. In the statements which have been issued they have condescended to a greater amount of detail than they were prepared to furnish the Secretary of Mines with last year, when they were asked to answer a number of specific questions. The only other comment I
make is that it is extraordinary in life how often it becomes necessary to form organisations for the defence of the irreproachable. I am reminded of a statement of Benjamin Franklin to this effect:
When I see a merchant over-polite to his customers, begging them to take a little brandy and throwing his goods on the counter, thinks I, That man has got an axe to grind.'
I cannot help feeling that in the history of coal distribution somebody has got an axe to grind, that that axe is being ground pretty well, and that having been ground it is made to descend pretty heavily on the neck of the consumer. These facts indicate the problem. What the consumer wants to know is what is the cause of this difference. It cannot very well be set against the wage of the miner. I do not suppose that, and should be very surprised if, a single Member of this House would venture to say that, in view of the work they have to perform and the conditions in which they work, the miners are being overpaid. In any case their wages represent but a small part of the price of the coal to the consumer. Then is the owner making too many profits? I have been reading speeches by the coal owners in recent times and I gather that they are making practically no profit at all. Incidentally there is a suspicion in certain parts of the country that certain people are not only coal owners but also people, possibly under different names, who are coal distributors, and what they lose on the swings of ownership they make up for on the roundabouts of distribution, and there must be a good many roundabouts between the coal leaving the pithead and arriving at the house of the consumer. Is it railway freights? In the statement which has been issued it is stated that freights do consume a considerable portion of this difference, but I have already given figures as far as South Wales is concerned, where it is clear that the railway freights are not responsible for more than a small part of this difference. Is it that there are too many middlemen engaged in distribution or is it that there is too much waste in the industry? Or is it a lack of organisation and a lack of initiative on the part of those who are responsible for the conduct of the industry?
These are questions which obviously should be cleared up, because this
problem is of vital interest to every home throughout the country and particularly, and perhaps more than we who are comfortably situated in life can appreciate, to the poorer homes of the country—to homes in the slums of the large cities, where the sun of heaven scarcely ever penetrates and the people have to rely upon coal for the only means of warmth available for them and their children. This is a matter which affects every child and every man and woman throughout the country, and has an intimate connection with the life and well-being and health of the population. These are questions to which, in view of the nature of the problem, we are entitled to ask the Government to devote their attention. Unless the Secretary for Mines can get up and assure the House that he and his Department are satisfied that everything is as it should be in connection with the coal industry and that he is satisfied that there is no waste, that there is complete. organisation and plenty of initiative and that there is no profiteering, and profiteering of the meanest form, consisting as it does of trading at the expense of one of the prime necessities of life—[An HON. MEMBER: "Socialism!"] I do not care what you call it. This is a question which does not involve party considerations. It is a question which, as I regard it, is a human question, affecting the well-being of the people at large and it does not matter what we call ourselves, whether it be Liberals, or Socialists, or Conservatives or Tory Democrats. Let us give the best we can in order to try to do something to remove what is a real grievance and something which involves a serious burden, not only upon the industries of this country, but upon the life of the individual man, woman and child throughout the country. Unless the Secretary for Mines can get up and assure the House that he is satisfied—and he will never do it—in regard to each of the questions which I have mentioned, it is obviously his duty to make certain that he ascertains the true facts of the situation, and having ascertained them, deals with them resolutely and effectively.

Mr. LUKE THOMPSON: In rising to oppose this Resolution, I would like at the very outset to remind the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) of the nature of
his Resolution. The assumption underlying that Resolution is that there are excessive coal prices, and that therefore the Government should be called upon to deal with those excessive coal prices by introducing some Measure. I was hoping that in his somewhat lengthy speech he would convince the House that there had been excessive coal prices charged. I have yet to find out from any utterance he has made that he has given any proof of any kind that there are excessive charges being made in the coal-distributing section of this trade.

Mr. SEXTON: You go and buy a hundredweight and you will find out.

Mr. THOMPSON: I have bought many a hundredweight. I know this House is always fair in its treatment of these questions, and I give the hon. and gallant Member the credit for wishing to approach this question in a fair manner. If he did not, I think his conduct would be reprehensible. Any hon. Member who approaches this subject in other than a serious manner would lay himself open to the charge of reprehensible conduct. I hope, in the short time at my disposal, to contribute to this Debate in a real manner, and to remove some misconceptions. Let me start, first, with the misconceptions of the Seconder of the Resolution. He said that the pit-head price was 18s. a ton for coal in Wales. One of my hon. Friends asked, "Is that the average price?" and he replied, "Yes, the average price." Not later than yesterday, we had one hon. Member, I think it was the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Beckett) talking in the same easy, slipshod tones. He quoted prices of 18s. and 20s. for Durham coal, and 50s., 55s. and 60s. for the coal in London, and he said, "I want to know how it is that these coals, sea-borne, show a difference of price between 18s. and 20s., and from 50s. up to 60s. in London." I want to remind the hon. Member that there is scarcely any house coal shipped to London at the present time from Durham. I do not think there is½ per rent. so shipped. 99½ per cent. of the coal that comes into London is rail-borne. Notwithstanding, we have these loose statements made.
I have heard statements made again and again in this House, that 19s. 9d. was the price of house coal at the pit
head, and that the same coal was 55s. to 60s. a ton in London. The question asked is, "Why the difference?" I have heard responsible miners' representatives say the same thing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I challenge you.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: You profit by it.

Mr. THOMPSON: It is time that the House and the country knew the actual facts of this matter. I want to deal with the different items. There is a big difference between 19s. 9d. and 27s. 9d. as the pit-head price, quoted by the Mover of the Resolution. I want to show where the difference comes in. As hon. Members opposite know, there is a difference between hard coal and soft coal, and the percentages that you can get in small and round coal. Let me take an assumed case of, say, 35 per cent. of slack at 8s. [Laughter.]

Mr. BATEY: Go on.

Mr. THOMPSON: Take 8 per cent. of small, 8 per cent. of nuts and 49 per cent. of round. You will not get 49 per cent. of round at most of the collieries in Durham.

Mr. BATEY: I know some duff that is sold as best.

Mr. THOMPSON: I am speaking of house coal, and it would require the pit to charge 30s. 2d. for round coal—[HON. MEMBERS: "What pit?"] I am not giving the name of the pit. [Interruption.]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The Mover and Seconder were listened to very quietly, and I must appeal to hon. Members not to interrupt.

Mr. THOMPSON: For any hon. Members to make a statement that the average selling price is 19s. 9d. at the pit head, when they definitely know that there is no such price for house coal, is unfair. House coal is not sold at the pit head at that price, and anyone who makes such a statement, deliberately, should not only be contradicted, but it should be made perfectly plain to this House that the statement is inaccurate. At the present time you can buy Derby Brights at the pit head at 27s., but in my own county you pay from 28s. 6d. to 32s. for house coal at the pit head. If
you take into consideration these facts, it makes all the difference between the assumption made to-night by the Seconder of the Resolution, that there is from 18s. to 20s. distributive charge, on the basis of an average pit-head price of 18s. for house coal.
Let me take the second point. There are three charges on the pamphlet sent out by the Federation. May I say that the Federation sent their pamphlet to the hon. and gallant Member opposite, to show that they were supplying him as well as anybody else with a fair statement of the case. Let me take the three charges. There is, first, the pit-head price of 27s. which you cannot alter. If the hon. and gallant Member disputes that, I would suggest that he should leave the lucrative profession in which he is now engaged and start as a coal merchant, and see whether he can buy any cheaper than 27s. We have 27s. 9d., with the wastage, as the pit-head price. There is a second charge of 11s. 11d., which makes 39s. 8d. of the 51s. at which the coal is sold to the consumer, representing 78 per cent. of the total charge of 51s. The other items represent 22 per cent., over which the coal merchants have some control. Therefore, the whole controversy ranges round that third item. The coal merchants cannot control the pit-head price, and they cannot control the railway charges, but they have some control over the distributive charges. Therefore the whole controversy ranges round that.
Let me be entirely fair. There is an item of 10s. 3d., plus is. 1d., which means that 11s. 4d. is allowed for the total charge of distribution and profit. That varies, and it varies considerably in the circumstances of distribution. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to a report of the interview between the Cooperative Societies and the late Secretary for Mines. In the first column, the Co-operative Societies for London return their distributive charge as 11s., compared with 11s. 4d. But I go a good deal further. I hold in my hand a charge for one of the North Eastern districts of 7s. 3d. or, with a railway charge of 2s. 3d., a distributive charge of 9s. 6d. I will tell the hon. Members where the difference comes in. It is not due to the fault of the coal merchant, and not due to the distribution, but due to the conditions under which they have the coal to distribute. It is well known
that in most of the North Eastern districts the coal is delivered in ton loads, and you may have distribution going on in the tens of tons a clay. You come into the metropolis and every bit of coal has to be bagged; every bit of coal has to be handled out of the trucks; has to be rehandled into the lorries, and rehandled again into the coal cellars. The result is that in the matter of the charges on that distribution the coal merchants have no control but have to fall in with the conditions. This question was again raised under the late Secretary for Mines and one of the representatives of the Co-operative Societies said:
One of the main troubles in large areas is that the tenement houses in London and Glasgow,"—
our friends from Glasgow can tell you more than I can and I hope they will—
even the new council houses being put up, barely contain enough space to put in half a ton of coal. If I had my way every house which goes up would have at least space for a couple of tons of coal.
It is the same in London. You have no accommodation. If you have accommodation in cellars, it has to be delivered in bag lots. I am going to take what I think is a very exceptional course for any Member in this House to take, and I. think an attitude which has not bees taken in the House of Commons. Again, may I say to hon. Members opposite, I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney will be as scrupulous even in his own profession and in the other trades with which he is interested, and that he will, under an audited and certified account, disclose all the charges and disclose his profits. I might say to hon. Members above the Gangway that this is one of the difficulties that has arisen over the Political Levy. It is because the Members will not, and dare not, disclose a declared and audited account of exactly the distribution of that money.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member had better keep to the subject under discussion.

Mr. THOMPSON: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I think I was led away. These distributive charges are charges that are audited and ascertained. As has been shown, you have under the first grouping of 39.8, 78 per cent, of the total cost over which the merchants have
no control. Secondly, you have in the second set of charges an item of 4s. for wages, on which, in reply to a question raised by an hon. Member opposite, I want to say this. There was a disposition to say that the coal merchants, where possible, pay less wages than the cooperative people. The wages paid by the coal merchants are the wages fixed by the Industrial Court of 1924, and on the fair and reasonable basis of wages. They represent 40 per cent. wages alone in the distributing charges for domestic coal in London. Furthermore, so far as the problem goes, 1s. 1d. corresponds in some direction with the evidence given before the late Secretary for Mines in which the societies there stated that they made practically on an average 3½ per cent. on their turnover. The results certified by the auditors of the coal merchants show 2 per cent., and it is fair to say that the whole of the distributive charges form 2½, per cent. only of the actual cost to the consumer. I think that point wants emphasising. In other words, pit-head and railway rates 78 per cent., distributing charges 20 per cent., and the profit to the distributors 2 per cent. May I just briefly—

Mr. BATEY: Before the hon. Member passes on. He promised he was going to reveal something which has never been revealed before. Will he do it before he passes on?

Mr. THOMPSON: I will reveal this. I have analysed the whole of the charges in the distributing trade. I challenge any other trade or industry in the country to come forward with an ascertained and audited account similar to that. I think it is a fair challenge. There has been, if not a direct charge, an implication by the hon. and gallant Member of certain rings in the coal trade. I would give that the most emphatic denial, and I believe that for reasons that will appeal to all Members, whether they belong to the party above or below the Gangway. In the first place, it is well known that in many Northern districts prices are not set by the coal merchant at all, but my distributing collieries that may be in the district. Therefore, it is impossible in that case for any merchant to fix prices by rings. The merchants in themselves are in severe competition. There is another implication that there was a discredit—I think it was the hon. Member
who seconded the Motion—because coal merchants were in an association. Is there any discredit in being in an association?

Mr. E. EVANS: I never suggested there was.

Mr. THOMPSON: But the implication is there. There is no discredit in coal merchants forming a federation or association, so long as it is right for you. I am free to say there is open competition among members of the association. The co-operative societies are sufficient and are a law unto themselves. I might weary the House if I referred again to the interview the co-operative societies had with the late Secretary for Mines, but it is a fact that the co-operative societies are a law unto themselves and are not in attachment with anyone. I see the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander). How can you suggest if you are such a representative body that there is a ring among the coal merchants?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Speaker has more than once pointed out that hon. Members must see Mr. Speaker or his representative and not one another.

Mr. THOMPSON: Again I apologise. I was led away by excitement. I think I have said sufficient to show there is no such thing as rings. If there is suggestion that there were rings in the country districts, the fact is that in the country districts coal is distributed largely from railway sidings and managed by the railway companies themselves. They sell the coal at these railway sidings on a percentage basis. For these reasons it is impossible that rings should exist.
I think the evidence I have submitted will convince the House that the charges which have been made by the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney, in fact, contain no substance, and that the coal merchants as a whole in the distributive community are effectively meeting their obligations, and that, compared with any other agencies in being at present, they are more than efficiently meeting their obligations. I was very much interested in analysing the returns with regard to co-operative societies. I find
that the distribution of coal to the cooperative societies extends in all to one-eighth or one-seventh of their members. That is a curious fact, but it is a fact, again, on the evidence submitted to the inquiry by the Secretary for Mines last year, and the reason is not far to seek. It is because, as I believe, the merchants and the distributors give better service than the co-operative societies, and that they deliver the coal in better condition and sell at lower prices.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Perhaps my hon. Friend does not know that it is only comparatively recently that the coal trade has become part of the co-operative movement, and that it is increasing very rapidly.

Mr. THOMPSON: I can speak from experience in the north, and there are districts, which I know, in which distribution has been going on for the last 35 years, and in these places they have decreased their supplies. I have as much information on that point as my hon. Friend opposite. I hope, therefore, that the House will not be led away by the pretext of hon. Members opposite. It has been said from these benches that what we want is municipalisation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad to hear that "Hear, hear" from hon. Members opposite. We on this side will give our greatest resistance to any attempt to municipalise the coal industry, and, for the arguments which I have advanced and many others that might be advanced, if this Motion goes to a Division I shall vote against.

Mr. MARCH: I am sure that the House has been very much interested to hear the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. L. Thompson) explain what a philanthropic lot of people the coal merchants of London are. The fact is, that in their business they have been living fairly well on their losses. I happen to be a London Member and know something about the coal trade. My belief about the whole matter that it was the time of coal control which really spoiled the London merchants, so far as profits are concerned. The prices fixed when they were arranging the amount of profit to be made by a very small man out of his business, to enable him to get a living, enabled the other people in their quite large businesses to get more than they
had been in the habit of getting, and, of course, they are net desirous of going back. The ordinary distribution of coal in London is done by a, man at piecework. That is rather unfortunate. I have been a representative of the men before the Coal Merchants' Association in London on many occasions. I have tried to get the men to agitate for a weekly wage and not to do the work by piecework. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] Probably it is, but the men, and the employers as well, do not desire the men to have a regular weekly wage.
They have got reasons for it. Most of their reasons are based on the fact that the trade is not a staple trade. It fluctuates very considerably, and the employers like to have their men just when they want them. If there is no coal to go out the carman gets 1s. 6d. per day. It is termed "driving money," but it is not that at all. It is really stable duty money. The men have to do stable work, clean the horse and get ready, and then, if they do a day's work, it is generally considered to be three two-ton loads, or six tons for a day's work. The employers themselves have always recognised that the wages which they pay the men are based on a 34-ton week, five days at six tons, and on the Saturday four tons, and they do not consider that the men can live decently on doing less than that. There are many who do much less than that, and they can send those men four miles without any extra charge.
This table which has been outlined may be true, but I should want to scrutinise the books very seriously to find out where the extras come in. With regard to the extra journey money I should also want to be convinced as to whether a sack going out six or a dozen times in the day is going to cost 4d. each time. I should also want to find out something about the charges made on the wharf. We get the wharf manager who has generally been one of the workmen, a leading man. We get the chief clerk, and then the weighbridge clerk, in many instances. It is very nice to bring out these administrative charges, but they want a great -deal of scrutinising. Then my hon. Friend tried to compare the work of the men working for coal merchants as compared with those working for co-operative societies. I may inform him that there is no cooperative worker who runs away from
his job to get a coal merchant's job in London. They get a full weekly wage, they get a half-day's holiday, with pay, as well as finishing early on Saturday, and they do not have to go round on Sunday to collect the money for the coal, which they have left with the people at their own charge, as they have to do in London.
The whole system of London delivery of coal is a disgrace. The men who take the coal out take it out on their own responsibility. They find their own customers, not the employer or his agent, and deliver the coal at standard price to the people, and go round on Saturday nights and Sundays collecting the money, and the merchants know it and they keep the men at it. No wonder they do not want weekly servants. They like the men to be on piece-work. There are very few coal merchants in London who pay their men sick pay during illness. Unfortunately coal carmen, in going about the streets in all kinds of weather, are subject to illness occasionally. But the co-operative society does pay sick pay. If all that goes into the expense of the coal-distribution charges there must be a difference between the co-operators and the coal merchants. It has been stated that coal when it reaches some of the consumers costs as much as 56s. or 60s. a ton. It happens in this way. In a district like- that which I represent, where the people have not got the convenience for storing much coal—they have worse inconvenience in finding the money to pay for the coal—they buy coal in 7-lb. lots. You cannot go to a coal dealer and get a 7-lb. lot at an average of 27s. or 51s. a ton. They have to pay exorbitant prices for small quantities. Even if they get 14 lbs or 28 lbs. at a time they still have to pay a price in excess of that paid by those who order a ton at a time. Consequently, these people frequently pay 56s. to 60s. on the average per ton for coal.
We are trying to alter that in Poplar. We are trying to dispense with stoves by putting in electricity. I heard the hon. Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) say that Hackney had a very good supply of electricity. Hackney cannot come up to Poplar. Bad as we are, we have the finest electricity undertaking in London, and we are supplying electricity cheaper than anyone else in London. What is more, we are paying the best wages to the workmen, and giv
ing them the best conditions of any district in London. And we are proud of it. Parliament threw out the Bill which would have given the people who are in poor circumstances an opportunity of getting reasonably cheap coal. During the War and during control you allowed the municipalities to store large quantities of coal, but you did not allow them to distribute it to the consumers. You allowed them to get in 400 tons or 500 tons of coal and to store it in case there was a shortage, so that the retailers of the district could come along and take that coal and distribute it, which they did and which we did in Poplar. But is was not to the benefit of the consumer; it, was more to the benefit of the retailer. What we desire is to see that if there is any advantage to be obtained it should go to the consumers, the people who pay all the time and every time, to relieve them of a lot of payment that they make for keeping other people on their backs. We have advised them on many occasions that what they have to do is to set abort relieving themselves of the chains that have been wound around them.
Probably the Debate to-night will help the Minister to go into the question of these retail prices and to see whether something cannot be done to enable the poor consumers to get coal more cheaply than they are getting it now. I will not say that there are exorbitant profits being made by anybody. I have not said so. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Motion?"] The Motion says "excessive prices," and I do not think it mentions excessive profits. We are complaining about excessive prices, and all the remarks that I have made have been about excessive prices. The unfortunate part of it is that the poorer a person is, the more he pays for all his commodities, not only coal, but bread, and everything that he requires. If he wants tea he cannot get it at the same price as you or I would pay. He has to buy one ounce or two ounces, and he is charged more in proportion. Things of that kind we want to see altered. They can be altered only when you give the municipalities power to get the commodities and to retail them to the people at a reasonable charge for administration, instead of allowing so many people to make a profit out of the consumers.
I am glad that the hon. Member for South Hackney brought this question forward. I hope that the Debate will be of good effect upon the Minister, and that it will enable him to look into the question and see whether something cannot be done to reduce prices.

Mr. WRAGG: The proposer of the Motion expressed the opinion that 27s. 9d. was not a fair price for the merchant to pay for coal at the pithead. I rather think that the merchant is understating the case, because within my own knowledge there are collieries, supplying certain classes of house coal for London, which are charging 35s. to 36s. a ton at the pithead. To-day there is one particular colliery doing that, I know, and I believe there are several of them doing so. The fact that the colliery owner gets 35s. is all to the good of the miners, because the higher the price of the coal at the pithead the greater the proceeds, and the miner gets a high percentage of the proceeds.

Mr. CAPE: Are we to take it that the hon. Member is making that statement on behalf of the coal-owners?

Mr. WRAGG: I hold no brief for the coal merchants or for the coal-owners. I am simply stating what is a fact at a particular colliery and, I believe, at several other collieries in that district. I am pointing this out, because it is a fallacy to try to get mathematical accuracy in the price put down as chargeable at the pithead. As everyone knows, coal varies and is of different qualities. Sometimes you think you are getting Derby brights and sometimes another particular kind of coal, but I think that, taking it all round, 27s. 9d. is an understatement of the pithead price that the merchant has to pay. The question is asked, if 27s. 9d. is the pithead price, how does it come about that the average is only 18s. or 19s.? It comes about in this way. A colliery that is selling at 35s. a ton for a particular market is selling slack or dust for electricity purposes at 5s. 6d. a ton at the pithead When you average the 5s. 6d. and the 35s., and the prices of other manufacturing coals, including occasionally export coal, you get a certain average which is reflected in the returns given by the Government. I have those returns here.
The Proposer also said that the cost of distribution was very excessive. He said that the merchants put down for this cost 3s. 8d., but that the co-operative societies could do it for 1s. 8d. If they can do for 1s. 8d. what the merchants do for 3s. 8d., why on earth do they not sell coal in London at a price considerably cheaper than the coal merchants? According to that view the co-operative societies, if they wished, could regulate a fair and proper price for household coal in London. The Seconder of the Motion made what to my mind was a somewhat appalling statement, but one which is easy of contradiction. He said the miner got only a small proportion of the proceeds of the sale of Coal. I have before me the Government Returns for the quarter ending in September, 1924. I believe the return for the quarter ending December, 1924, is not yet published—at any rate I have not been able to get it—but I find that in the previous quarter the miner received in wages 13s. 8.19d. per ton and not under 10s. as the Seconder said.

Mr. E. EVANS: I think the hon. Member is doing me an injustice. He is talking about the wage per ton, but I distinctly said I was referring to the wage per shift.

Mr. WRAGG: I understood that afterwards the hon. Member turned his figure into the figure per ton, but if that is not so I withdraw my remark. The fact remains that the wage cost per ton for this particular quarter throughout the whole of England was 13s. 8.19d., and of course in South Wales it was considerably higher. The selling price at the pit-mouth of that coal was 19s. 1.87d.—that was the average price. The total cost of that coal was 19s. 1.58d., and the owners get 0.29 of a penny per ton during that quarter, and the miners got 13s. 8.19d. per ton during that quarter. [Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members must listen to the other side of the case.

Mr. WRAGG: We have hon. Members saying in this House that the miners receive a very small proportion of the proceeds of the sale of coal, and yet we have the actual Government figures that the proceeds of the sale of the coal during that quarter were allocated as I have
described, and the figures for other quarters are nearly about the same. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] There may be 1d. or 2d. difference in the selling price at the pit-head, but there is not much in it. Out of the 19s. 1d. the miner got 13s. 8d., and the owner, during those three months at any rate, got practically nothing. I am not saying that during some other months the owners do not get something, but if they did not get something they could not carry on.
10.0 P.M.
What is the remedy suggested for this supposed high price of coal in London I do not admit at all that the prices are high. As I say, I hold no brief for the coal merchants, but taking the average price of household coal at 27s. 9d. and taking the coal merchants' cost or the co-operative societies' cost, I think the fact that the co-operative societies do not sell at a lower price shows that the price is quite reasonable. No case has been made out to show that coal merchants in London are profiteering. No case has been made out to show that the prices charged are excessive, because if they were excessive they could be remedied by the co-operative society. The remedy put forward is municipalisation. Anyone who has had experience of municipalisation knows that it does not reduce costs. Poplar may, as an hon. Member has just said, have a cheaper price for electricity than other parts of London, but the hon. Member ignores all the other relative factors in that matter.

Mr. ATTLEE: Is it not the fact that the price of municipal electricity over the whole London area, taking the boroughs all together, is one-third cheaper than the price of the companies, taking them all together.

Mr. WRAGG: I do not necessarily accept those figures. I am not prepared to challenge the figures given as to the price of electricity in Poplar, but it is not fair to take prices of electricity without taking all the relative factors into consideration. After our experience of nationalised services such as the telephone service one is forced to the conclusion that it will be a poor day for this country when we have nationalisation and municipalisation on an extensive scale, because there is no system in it. There is no service in this country which is run so
badly as the telephone system, and there is no one to whom we can make complaints or from whom we can get any remedy in regard to it. That applies to all nationalised services, but if you do not get satisfaction from one coal merchant you can always go to another. I think I have shown that the prices charged by the coal merchants are not excessive, and that if we change our system for a system such as is desired by hon. Members opposite, we may come to that position described in the words of the Bible—
My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.

Mr. RILEY: I wish on behalf of my hon. Friends on this side of the House to congratulate the hon. Member for South Hackney on his enterprise in bringing forward this question. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Thompson), who is, I understand, interested in coal, made a speech in which he tried to convince the House that there was no profit in the distributive eon', industry.

Mr. THOMPSON: I do not think I said that. I said there was a fair profit.

Mr. RILEY: I think the expression used was an "infinitesimal profit." I wish to assure the hon. Member and other hon. Members opposite that we have no desire to make any special attack upon business men engaged in the coal trade as distinct from any other trade. I am not aware that it has been suggested that they are making exorbitant profits but I suggest that it is somewhat difficult to imagine that there are not substantial profits still being made in the coal trade. We have the statement put forward by the trade itself in a leaflet which I have here, intimating that among the six great firms of distributors in London, responsible for the distribution of half the coal in London, there was an average profit of Is. 7d. per ten. The 1s. 7d. a ton may seem somewhat small. I went to the trouble yesterday to try to ascertain what is the amount of coal distributed in London, and I find that, as ascertained by the Mines Department last year, for domestic purposes there is round about 5½ million tons of coal consumed in London each year. [An HON. MEMBER: "The London County Council area?"] Yes. In addition, the
28 municipal authorities in London consume over 2,000,000 tons per annum. In those two directions there are no less than 7,000,000 tons a year consumed. The leaflet issued by the trade in the coal industry in London admits that six firms supply half the coal in London at an average profit of 1s. 7d. per ton. That is to say, on those 7,000,000 tons, there is, as a matter of fact, a net profit of £500,000 a year, and these six firms share £250,000 amongst them. That is not the whole story, because the 7,000,000 tons only include coal for domestic purposes and public authorities. The figure takes no account of all the supplies delivered for industrial purposes. Anyhow, that is sufficient to indicate that, after all is said and done, the coal trade in London is not yet quite on the verge of bankruptcy.
There is an attempt being made to try to demonstrate that there really is no margin to enable coal to be supplied to consumers at a less price, but I notice that even the leaflet put forward by the merchants admits that, on a ton of coal, that is, Derby Brights, which they state are being sold by the ton at 51s., there is a margin of 11s., after payment has been made for the pit-head price and the railway charges and sidings. There is a margin of 11s. on every ton delivered into the consumer's cellar, and I venture to say that Ms., with a margin of lls., is a minimum amount. Of course, as has been pointed out, a great portion of the coal in London is sold at a higher price than 51s. even reaching to 60s., so that it is quite clear there is the substantial margin of from 11s. to 14s. per ton going to the distributors, simply for transferring the coal from the London sidings into the consumers' cellars. We on these benches say that that is an exorbitant margin.
I can go to other parts of the country besides London. I have a copy of an actual invoice of deliveries of good house coal from South Wales collieries to Cardiff and Swansea, free to the railway sidings in Cardiff and Swansea. The price in Cardiff on the sidings vary from 33s. 7d. per ton to 37s. 7d., or an average prices of 34s. 6d. per ton. The same coal is sold in Cardiff and Swansea at 50s. per ton, so that in Cardiff and Swansea—not in London, with the difficulties which have been referred to—there is a margin of 14s. to 15s. per ton for carrying the coal from a railway siding into the con
sumer's cellar. I will give my own case. I live within seven miles of a coalfield, and I have never paid, since the year 1919, I think, less than £3 per ton for coal. I had a bill last week for £3 0s. 6d.; two years ago I was paying £3 3s. per ton for Wallsend house coal. I am informed by a friend who comes from that district that at the pithead at Wallsend best coal is being collected to-day at 23s. and 24s. per ton. I am paying £3 a ton for the same coal delivered at my house. It is said that one of the high charges on coal in London is the railway charge from the Midlands, or from wherever the coal comes, of 12s. In the West Riding of Yorkshire we get railway charges of 6s. or 8s. per ton, and, so far as I can make out, the coal I consume cannot cost the merchant who supplies it, when he receives it at the siding, more than 35s. a ton. I am paying £3, or 25s. more. These are facts which cannot be disputed, and there is a margin, which, with good management and organisation, would give a less price to the consumer.
I want to deal with the question of remedies. There have been suggestions as the result of the Inquiry undertaken by Mr. Shinwell last year. May I say we appreciate, I am sure, the reference which the hon. Member for South Hackney made to the work of Mr. Shinwell last year at the Mines Department; but I think the hon. Member overlooked the fact that Mr. Shinwell, as a matter of fact, before he left office, had prepared a Bill on this particular matter. At least, when I spoke to him to-day, I understood that a Bill was either in an advanced stage of preparation, or had been actually prepared. I understand the suggestions fall into three divisions. There was, it is said, a suggestion that a remedy might be found in some form of control of prices. Another method was that of registering dealers, who would be responsible for obeying certain regulations. The third suggestion was the development of municipal distribution. I will not waste time by considering the two first remedies which were mentioned. I agree that neither of them was practicable, but I do want to say a word on the question of a municipal remedy for the grievance of high prices in coal.
Reference has been made to-night—as a matter of fact, by the hon. Member for South Hackney—to what has been done in
the City of Sheffield. I have here a copy of the report which was presented by the city surveyor of Sheffield to the Corporation, on 6th July, 1920, and this report deals with the experience of the Sheffield Corporation, acting under War emergency powers, under the Fuel and Lighting Order, during the period of the War. The city surveyor reports that during the period the department of the Corporation concerned handled no less than 12,500 tons of coal. As has already been stated, the cost of it was £22,124, and they received for the 12,500 tons, £24,457, or a net profit of £2,333. The surveyor points out that the prices at which the coal was sold were those officially fixed, which included a certain amount for handling, and he says:
My experience of the matter was that, although we had no handling appliances, shoots, etc., like the merchants, we were able to handle the coal for less than the fixed charge. With proper appliances, we should have been able to have handled it for less and so increased our profit.
The result of that trading of the Sheffield Corporation was that on the 12,500 tons of coal there was a net profit of 3s. 9d. per ton, or over 10 per cent. return for the Corporation. I mention this because the municipal solution has been derided, and I want to suggest—

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane-Fox): What date was that?

Mr. RILEY: The 6th July, 1920. I want to go one step further. The hon. Member for Belper (Mr. Wragg) also criticised the slackness and the inefficiency of municipal methods of dealing with this matter. May I suggest to the hon. Member that he really is not acquainted with what the municipalities are doing. I have given the experience of Sheffield, working under difficulties, and, in spite of those difficulties, carrying on the undertaking with great success. Let me take the town in which I happen to live. For 20 years the town of Huddersfield has been carrying on a partial municipal distribution of coal, organised by the Corporation and carried out by its officials. I regret that it is only very partial; but the facts are that some 20 years ago the Huddersfield Corporation, acting under powers which they had, arranged to supply to certain textile manufacturers the whole of the coal required for their factories. That has gone on now for 20 years, and the result
is that the coal is being supplied, admittedly, under municipal organisation, on the municipal tramways, carried in municipal trucks to the factory yards, at one-half the price at which any private contractor is prepared to do it.
I will give an actual case. I live in the town of Huddersfield, within a stone's throw of a factory which has its coal delivered by the municipal authority on the municipal tramway lines. The price in the street where I happen to live for the delivery of a ton of coal is no less than 8s. 6d. per ton, for delivery 2¼ miles from a railway siding. Our municipal tramway system delivers to the factory across the road at 2s. 10d. per ton, as against the 8s. 6d. We suggest that on these lines something can be done, for it must be remembered that our municipalities already are large buyers of coal. They have great advantages. A city like Glasgow can go into the market and get far better prices than any private trader, for that city purchases a million tons of coal per year. What, might I ask, is the City of London doing, or the Birmingham City Council, or the Manchester City Council? There are the tramways, which means that much capital has been laid down in the tramway organisation. There are the rails on the streets, which are at the disposal of the authorities as an agency not for competition but for the purposes of distribution. I hope that the Minister will look to the municipalities as one of the means to the solution of this problem.
May I in conclusion remind the Minister of what was said by Mr. Justice Sankey's Commission? I would remind our hon. Friends on the other side who have such a small opinion of that Commission, that it consisted, not only of the workmen's representatives, but of representatives of the employers too. That Commission unanimously recommended that the local authorities should be given statutory powers to deal in household coal subject to the provision that any loss sustained in such dealings should not be chargeable on the rates. There is, however, no fear that a municipality will engage in a public service which is likely to be charged on the rates. Tramways, electricity works, gasworks, waterworks, have given proof throughout the country that they are managed better by public enterprise than by private companies.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: If the London County Council follows the advice of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down the Minister of Transport is going to have to face even a bigger problem of congestion in the London streets than at present. I see very material difficulty in the distribution of coal along the tramway system of London. On another occasion, when we have more time to discuss it, I think the House will enjoy very much a lecture by the hon. Gentleman on a system of coal distribution by the trams. I think everyone who is desirous that coal should be cheaper must welcome the fact that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who opened this Debate did, in fact, give notice of the Motion which stands in his name. I hold the view that the State can do very little in the way of positive action to influence the course of prices. As a rule, when the State does intervene the permanent effect is to send up prices and not to diminish them. What the State can do is to give publicity to the matter. I believe publicity is an effective remedy in matters of the sort. The hon. and gallant Member, by his Motion, is giving publicity to this subject and is rendering valuable service. I think we ought to thank him for it.

Mr. BARKER: Then vote for the Motion.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not agree with the Motion. I do not agree with the form of it. It might have been a different matter if I had been allowed to draft it. I hope, however, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not find him, self in any particular trouble with Members of his own party, because for some peculiar reason Members of the Liberal party are very successful as tea distributors and as coal distributors. Many of them have achieved fame and fortune through the sale of tea and coal. I am afraid their million-pounds fund will suffer a little from his exertions to night. He is a Free Trader, and I happen to be a Protectionist. He believes in the free and unrestrained interplay of economic forces, the thing that hon. Members opposite would call anarchy. I do not quite understand why one who believes in the free interplay of economic forces should desire to municipalise, to hand over, not to competent people, but to people who are
doing it in their spare time, the job of running a great business. From time to time, where for any reason private enterprise has not provided a service, there may be justification for the State or the municipality to come in, but normally it is one's experience that the administration of a trading service by a municipality is less efficient than by ()O'er people. It is perfectly easy to give examples of electricity being sold at this price or that price. Those who have had any experience of electrical engineering know that there is nothing more difficult in the world than to effect an exact comparison between electrical prices.
But to come to the immediate issue. Last year Mr. Shinwell, a, gentleman whom I have not had the privilege of meeting, but whose economic views are certainly not mine, had an inquiry. I read that inquiry at the time, two volumes of it, and I refreshed my knowledge to-day. He did not seem to get much further. He expressed himself as a little dissatisfied with what the merchants had told him, but he took no action. It must be that he took no action because he felt he had no justification for taking action. He would have had no lack of backing from public opinion, irrespective of political views, if he had felt he had got a case. He did not take action because there was no effective case.
In the case of coal we are face to face with a grave problem, to which I see no solution at the moment. Leaving out of account the allegations, which may be regarded as partisan, that coal owners are not as efficient as they might be, or that coal miners have declined in efficiency since the War, we have to face the fact that in this country, owing, I presume, to the fact that the average depth of mines is constanty increasing, that the problems of coal-getting are becoming more difficult. The real cost of coal production in this country has been rising for a generation. I do not mean the cost measured in our fluctuating money, but measured in whatever is the basis of measurement—I am not going to say labour—time; but whatever you do take as your effective basis, it is true that the fundamental cost of coal production in this country is rising.
In addition to that, you have the awkward difficulty that coal distribution is of necessity carried out in an inefficient manner. When I say inefficient, I am
not blaming anybody, I am blaming circumstances. In London you put your coal into a bag—an inefficient process; you load the bag, generally by hand, on to a wagon—again an inefficient process; you draw that wagon through the streets; you lift the sacks off; you tip the coal through a hole in the pavement. These are a great number of inefficient processes in which there has been no improvement ever since they started doing it that way, as far as I know, and in which I can see no means of improvement.
In other industries, at the same time, great improvements have been taking place. The real cost of electric light—I am talking of light, and not of electricity—is to-day one-quarter of what it was 15 years ago, owing to improvements. There have been improvements in nearly every industry, and as those improvements take place you get a tendency for a rising standard of living in those industries, and the people in the industry hose efficiency is not improving claim the same increase in the standard of living as those do whose industries are improving. An industry which for any reason is unable to improve its position demands for those who work in it, whether employers, managers, or work-people, the same increased standard of living that you get in the industries whose efficiency is improving, and therefore you force up, so far as the consumer will stand it, the price of the commodity concerned. That, I believe, is the real fundamental trouble. You get prices out. of balance compared with other commodities, and this has been going on for the last 30 years.
That is the problem we have to face, and we shall not solve it by abusing one another in this House or outside, but by applying our minds and the minds of those engaged in the industry to finding out the best solution of the problem. I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for South Poplar (Mr. March) with considerable interest when he spoke of the difficulties of the poor people in his constituency buying coal in small quantities. I am afraid that he was to some extent exaggerating when he told us that they cannot buy more than 7 lbs. of coal at a time. I do not think that even the hard-hearted Poplar guardians would dole out money in such small
quantities as 2½d. a time, and therefore I think his illustration of 7 lbs. of coal at a time need not be taken seriously into account.
The hon. Member who seconded this Motion made a statement which surprised me very much, and I challenged it at the time with regard to the wage cost. He stated that the miners' wage per shift was something in the neighbourhood of 10s. for an output of something over one ton, and consequently the wage per ton was something under 10s. I challenged his statement at the time, and he retorted that he knew more about South Wales than I did.

Mr. E. EVANS: If I said the cost was 10s. a ton, it was a slip, because it is over 10s. Since the wage per shift is 10s. 5d. and the production per shift is less than a ton I ought to have said that the wage cost per ton is a little over 10s.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The actual figure is only three farthings under 15s.

Mr. TINKER: Does the hon. Member say that the cost per ton is 15s.?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Yes.

Mr. TINKER: That is not so, and it is quite wrong.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I have been giving the figures for Wales and Monmouth. At the time I challenged the hon. Member who comes from South Wales and I am trying to demonstrate to him the fact that I know more than he does on this subject. If it is true that there is anyone making a very good thing out of selling coal, there is nothing to prevent anyone else from starting in the same business.

Colonel LANE-FOX: I think the House will agree that we have had a very interesting Debate, and I have no fault whatever to find with the tone or temper of the speeches which have been delivered. I congratulate the Mover of this Motion upon his excellent speech, but I would like to remind him that if he moves a Vote of Censure on the Government, he cannot expect us to accept it. As far as the desire to carry out the objects he has advocated are concerned with regard to the retail price of coal, that is a matter with which the whole House has sympathy, although we may not be able to
adopt the actual methods which have been suggested in this Debate. The question we are discussing to-night is, of course, a very difficult one, and it is also a very old one and by no means confined to this country. The question of the difficulty of the actual distribution of coal, especially in small quantities to a large number of people in a congested area, has been acute in a great many places, and is a particularly burning one in the United States of America. I should like to point out to the House that a good many factors come into the question. There is, for instance, the great question of transport and the cost of transport, which has been referred to by several speakers, where, since it is a sheltered industry, the wages are high—in fact, higher than those of the miners. There is also the question of the shortage of storage room, which is one of the great difficulties in getting coal distributed to small consumers. In small houses, as everyone knows, the accommodation for the storage of coal is extremely small, while in flats it is difficult even to find any place for it at all. Moreover, the merchants have certain difficulty in regard to storage.
All these points have to be considered. I feel sure that the merchants do their very best. During last summer they tried to persuade all their fellow-countrymen to do their best to buy their coal early, when prices were lower in the summer, in order to avoid a great rush later on and the consequent rise in prices. The ordinary individual, however, and particularly the working man, is certainly not prepared to buy for consumption, some months later on, a considerable stock of coal, even if he has a place in which to put it; and, again, the, merchants themselves have to buy large stocks and make forward contracts, and it must be remembered that, if the winter is a mild one, like that through which we have just passed, there is the possibility that, as I know has actually been the case, these people may have very large stocks of coal left on their hands and may very probably find themselves involved in considerable loss.
So many figures have been thrown about from one side of the House to another, that I am certain the House will not expect me to deal with individual figures and cases, but I will promise that every figure that has been given shall he
examined and inquired into, and particularly those which were given in the very interesting speech of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley). With regard to the case of Sheffield, I would rather not go into that in detail now, but I think it must have been an exceptional case. I know that the experience which has been referred to in that case was gained during the control period, and, moreover, there had been a considerable accumulation of coal in various places close by. I will, however, go further into that matter. I can only say now that, as far as I understand, it seems to have been an exceptional experience, which could not be justified on any large number of cases.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: It is not at all exceptional.

Colonel LANE-FOX: Reference has been made by several speakers to the household coal which is delivered and sold as household coal in London, and, indeed, the price of household coal in London is the main question that we have been discussing. That particular kind of coal, however, is different from other kinds or coal, and its price is different from the average pit-head price of coal for general purposes. It must be remembered that it is quite impossible for my Department to give the actual prices of each particular class of coal. We can only get these prices -from the trade papers, and, even there, there is a good deal of difficulty in tracing exactly what the price of each sort, of coal is. Questions have been asked on this matter in the House over and over again, not only of myself, but of my predecessors. Hon. Members often take the average pit-head price and quote it as against the retail price for small quantities delivered a very long way away from the colliery, but, obviously, that is not a fair comparison. It must be remembered that the average pit-head price, which is the only figure we can obtain, includes, not, only the price of small coal, slack and so on, but it also includes, especially in the North and in South Wales, a large quantity of coal which is being sold for export. Everybody knows at the present moment that the coal industry is in a very parlous condition. The export trade is becoming more and more difficult. It is common knowledge that coal is being raised and
the collieries have to do as best they can, and that in many cases they are accepting prices lower than the actual cost of production in order to be able to get someone to buy at all. Every day, as the competition gets more severe, I regret to say the position is getting worse in that respect and every day that tendency is more marked. Therefore that renders the average pit-head prices very elusive and incorrect prices to quote in comparison with other prices.
Another difficulty has been alluded to, that is, the seasonal nature of the household coal trade. The merchant buys in summer when the demand is less, and the collieries, which have to get rid of the coal which is raised, are prepared to take a lower price. As I said before, if the general public bought more largely in summer, they would certainly get their coal cheaper, but it is only fair to say—and we all want to be fair in this matter—that when the merchant has got his stock in in summer and has to consider the cost of storage and the interest on the outlay, it is inevitable that there should be a certain increase in price when it goes eventually to the consumer in cold weather. I am not wishing to make any special case for either side, but I want to treat both fairly and to give them a fair chance. As I said, this Motion is put down in the form of a censure Motion on the Government. I would like to point out what happened in regard to the action of my predecessor. I may be responsible for a great many things, but I will not be responsible for my predecessor. The action which I took—and this is where the present Government come in—as soon as I came back, knowing there had been a long controversy between Mr. Shinwell and the coalowners, was to invite the representatives of these gentlemen to come and sec me. I knew they had had a long controversy with him and I knew that the most acute part of that controversy had taken place in the early spring, in February and March. There had therefore been the whole of the summer wasted and nothing had been done, therefore I wanted to know what the position was and see if there was anything I could do to improve on my predecessor. That is where the present Government come in. I found on reading the account of the
controversy he had been able to prove distinctly that in no sense was there a ring and that he had got to exactly the same position as in previous inquiries—that although there was no actual ring there was a certain amount of concerted action. He could have found that out by reading any of the reports of previous committees. After all, I do not know any trade in which something of that sort does not happen. If there is such an immense amount of profiteering going on, and if there is such an enormous margin between the pithead price and the price at which the consumer gets the coal, how is it, seeing that there is such a vast number of people in this country, that there are not a great many people rushing in to explore this gold mine? I suggest that it is a splendid opportunity for the bright young people of the Liberal party. Why are they missing the opportunity? Here is an opportunity that ought not to be missed. We are told that there is a ring, but even so, is the ring so tight that there cannot be competition from anyone who wishes to come forward? If the position is as bad as it has been represented, how is it that there was not—

Captain GARRO-JONES: If the hon. Member will inquire in his Department., he will find that if anyone attempted to sell at a much lower rate than the rate at which coal is being sold at the present time by the coal merchants, the Coal Merchants' Federation would boycott the collieries which supplied them.

Colonel LANE-FOX: I advise the hon. and gallant Member to try. If he thinks that he and his friends are not smart enough to defeat the coal merchants, if they are really making such exorbitant profits, he rates the ability and capacity of the coal merchants higher than most people. I do not believe that if properly tackled it would be found very difficult for anyone to come in and, by honest trading, to take their stand.
What I found when I came into office was that since the 1st September there had been no rise in the retail price of household coal delivered in London. That was the position when the present Government came into office at the end of the year. I also found that during
this winter there have been practically no complaints in the Department, whereas during the previous winter there had been over 100 complaints, both as to price and quality. Therefore, I think I was justified in saying what I have said on several occasions that, for the moment, I was not very anxious to pursue the matter further, more particularly because at this moment the merchants have very large stocks on their hands and, therefore, obviously, profiteering is very difficult. When stocks are short there is an opportunity for profiteering, human nature being what it is, but when everybody has a large stock on hand the coal merchant will find it extremely difficult to profiteer. The coal merchants gave me certain figures and I was able to have them analysed and checked. The point they made was that a previous Committee—the Duncan Committee—had said that the cost of distribution should be reduced. They were certainly able to prove that during recent years they had diminished the cost of distribution, though certain costs had gone up. It is fair to them to say that the wages had been increased by an award of the Industrial Court. They showed that the salaries of their staff had been kept up to the, level of the cost of living. But they had reduced other things. They reduced their siding rents and general establishment charges. The total did not make a very large reduction, considering that one part of the costs was increased by facts over which they had no control.
The time is getting on and the House must reasonably ask what are the Government prepared to do? That is the question I am very anxious to answer. The Government are as anxious to keep down retail prices of coal as anybody else in this House. We may not be considered to have many virtues, but I do think coal can be very useful in vote-catching. The situation does not seem to call for much anxiety, for the reasons I have given. There has been a mild winter and a big stock. When I invited the coal merchants to meet me, I did it with the expressed intention of making quite clear to them that this Government was not going to be any more inclined to be lenient to anything in the way of profiteeering than
any previous Government, and that any time when there seemed to be any suggestion or the Government had reason to believe that they were exceeding the limit of reasonable profit, the Government would not shrink from taking strong action. The mistake of my predecessor was that he did not get clown to bed rock. If he had done so he might have found out a great deal more than he did. There is a method by which a great deal more information could be obtained. The Government certainly will not hesitate to take powers to call for the books of merchants if necessary, and if necessary, in specially bad cases, to publish the result. That would be o, very strong power and one which might be abused, and therefore it wants to be carefully considered. But before any definite Action is taken it is only right to look for information, and full inquiry must be made before any action of that sort is taken. The Government are as anxious as anyone else—

Mr. MACKINDER: Is there, Die necessary staff in the Department?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I said that the Government would naturally make inquiries. After that they will take any action which is necessary to deal drastically with any situation as regards profiteering that may be found to exist.

Captain BENN: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to ask for these powers? Does he intend to do so this Session?

Colonel LANE-FOX: The hon. and gallant Gentleman most allow me to be the best judge of that. For the moment we have to investigate the matter so that

we may be able to deal with it when necessary. While I have every sympathy with the idea of reducing, as far as we can, the price of coal to the consumer, yet the Motion which has been put down has been put in the form of a Vote of Censure, and as such the Government must oppose it. It must be obvious to everyone that anybody who puts down a Motion in this form must expect that it cannot be allowed to pass without being opposed by the Government. Meantime, all that I need say is that we will watch the situation very carefully and do everything that can be done, and if we acquire further information, pointing to the necessity of further powers, we will take the necessary action.

Captain BENN: In the whole of the genial speech of the right hon. Gentleman there was not a solitary word of comfort to the person who has to pay the exorbitant price. The Government are in the position to take the powers now. They need not use them until they are required. They are doing nothing. Instead we have had a series of jokes, and, at the end, the statement that if the Government find it necessary they will take action. My hon. Friends are entitled, censure or no censure, to vote for this Motion.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: May I ask why more has not been done on the lines of the Report of the Advisory Committee presented to us two years ago?

Question put:
That this House calls upon the Government to prosecute measures to prevent excessive charges for coal supplied to household consumers.

The House divided: Ayes, 118; Noes, 211.

Division No. 63.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bromfield, William
Day, Colonel Harry


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bromley, J.
Duncan, C.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Dunnico, H.


Ammon, Charles George
Buchanan, G.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Fenby, T. D.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Cape, Thomas
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Charleton, H. C.
Gillett, George M.


Barnes, A.
Clowes, S.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Barr, J.
Cluse, W. S.
Greenall, T.


Batey, Joseph
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Connolly, M,
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Dalton, Hugh
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Groves, T.


Broad, F. A.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Grundy, T. W.


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Lowth, T.
Smillie, Robert


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Mackinder, W.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
MacLaren, Andrew
Snell, Harry


Hardie, George D.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Stamford, T. W.


Harris, Percy A.
March, S.
Sutton, J. E.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Montague, Frederick
Taylor, R. A.


Hayday, Arthur
Morris, R. H.
Thurtle, E.


Hayes, John Henry
Murnin, H.
Tinker, John Joseph


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Naylor, T. E.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Palin, John Henry
Varley, Frank B.


Hirst, G. H.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Viant, S. P.


Hirst, W. (Bradford. South)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Warne, G. H.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Potts, John S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Welsh, J. C.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Riley, Ben
Westwood, J.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Ritson, J.
Whiteley, W.


Jonas, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Kelly, W. T.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Kennedy, T.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Windsor, Waiter


Kirkwood, D.
Scrymgeour, E.



Lansbury, George
Scurr, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lawson, John James
Sexton, James
Captain Garro-Jones and Mr.


Lee, F.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Ernest Evans.


Livingstone, A. M.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Drewe, C.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Albery, Irving James
Eden, Captain Anthony
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Jacob, A. E.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Ellis, R. G.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Elveden, Viscount
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Knox, Sir Alfred


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fielden, E. B.
Lamb, J. Q.


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Fleming, D. P.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Ford, P. J.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Forrest, W.
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Frece, Sir Walter de
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Looker, Herbert William


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lougher, L.


Bethell, A.
Gates, Percy
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Betterton, Henry B.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Lumley, L. R.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
MacAndrew, Charles Glen


Blundell, F. N.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
McLean, Major A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft *
Goff, Sir Park
Macmillan, Captain H.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Macquisten, F. A.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
dace, John
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Grant, J. A.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Briscoe, Richard George
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Gretton, Colonel John
Margesson, Captain D.


Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Merriman, F. B.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Burman, J. B.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hammersley, S. S.
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Caine, Gordon Hall
Horland, A.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Campbell, E. T.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Harlington, Marquess of
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Haslam, Henry C.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hawke, John Anthony
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nuttall, Ellis


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Oakley, T.


Christie, J. A.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur p.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pennefather, Sir John


Clayton, G. C.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Herbert, S. (York, N.R. Scar. & Wh'by)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Perring, William George


Cope, Major William
Holland, Sir Arthur
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Pilcher, G.


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Homan, C. W. J.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Radford, E. A.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Raine, W.


Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Ramsden, E.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. O.


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Huntingfield, Lord
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)




Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Ropner, Major L.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Salmon, Major I.
Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Sandeman, A. Stewart
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Styles, Captain H. Walter
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Sanderson, Sir Frank
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Wise, Sir Fredric


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Wolmer, Viscount


Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Tinne, J. A.
Womersley, W. J.


Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wills. Westb'y)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)


Skelton, A. N.
Turton, Edmund Russborough
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wragg, Herbert


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Waddington, R.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Smithers, Waldron
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.



Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Warrender, Sir Victor
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sprot, Sir Alexander
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Mr. Luke Thompson and Mr.


Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Hannon.


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wells, S. R.

Orders of the Day — CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the urban district council of Teignmouth, which was presented on the 16th February and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Biggleswade and District Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 3rd March and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1990, on the application of the Welwyn, Knebworth, and District Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 12th March and published, be approved, with the following modifications:
Clause 20, page 9, after the words 'transfer shall,' insert the words 'except so far as such Acts and Orders are repealed or mended and.'
Clause 20, page 9, omit the words 'continue to apply to the undertaking after that date,' and in place thereof insert the words 'apply to the whole undertaking of the Welwyn Company.'
Clause 44, page 23, after the words 'Section 12 (Power to purchase additional gas leads),' insert the words 'Section 15 (Amending obligations as to supply of gas).'"—[Sir Burton Chadwick.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — WELSH UNIVERSITY (GRANTS).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Mr. MORGAN JONES: A fortnight ago I addressed a question to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in regard to the matter of the Welsh University grants. On account of the answer, I felt it my duty to give notice that I would raise this matter at the earliest moment on the Adjournment. It was not possible to raise it before to-night, and, therefore, with the indulgence of the House, I would like to refer to it of this moment. The question I addressed to the Financial Secretary was one with a two-fold reference. First, it referred to the prospective grant which the Treasury has recently announced to the Universities throughout the country; and, secondly, it had reference to certain negotiations which have taken place between the Treasury, or, rather, the University Grants Committee and the Welsh University authorities in the past.
I want, in the very short time at my disposal, to limit myself to one portion of the subject, namely, the reference to the past, and not to the future grant. On 14th August, 1918, a deputation was received by the then Prime Minister of the Coalition Government, assisted, I think, by my right hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher), who was then the President of the Board of Education, in regard to the difficult financial situation in which the Welsh University then found itself. It was a deputation thoroughly representative of Welsh life generally, and they came up, of course, as most deputations do, to Downing Street, in pursuit of the eternal quest, financial aid. After the deputation had presented its case, the
then Prime Minister intimated that he would only entertain the application on two very specific conditions. One was that the University authorities would accept, in the main, the proposals of what is called the Haldane Report, and, secondly, that no grant would be given unless the local authorities in Wales would pool their resources as a condition of the grant.
Subject to those two conditions, the Prime Minister of that day announced that a pound per pound grant would be made by the Treasury in respect of all moneys raised by the local authorities in Wales. In regard to that, I am not raising any controversy to-night. The other point that was promised was that a similar pound per pound grant would be made in respect of new income that would be accruing to the university from that date, August, 1918. I think that my right hon. Friend opposite will not repudiate or deny that such a promise was made. If it were denied, I could quote textually from the promise then made, which indicates that the promise was absolutely clear and precise as made to the deputation at that time. Indeed, the promise was almost confirmed by the answer given by my right hon. Friend a fortnight ago. There is only one observation I should like to make in regard to that reply. He said that the right hon. Gentleman the then Prime Minister had no right to commit the Government in perpetuity. I would be the last to expect the Prime Minister, or any future Prime Minister, to commit any Government in perpetuity, but I indicated in my supplementary question that there was no suggestion that any promise was made for all time, but that rather it covered the next five years. May I say that the five years suggestion came, not from the deputation itself, but was the suggestion of the then Prime Minister himself, as I could show by quotation, if time allowed.
What is the case that we have to present to-night? It is specifically in regard to that five years' period, and my point is, and, indeed, the point of the University authorities is, that this promise—what we call, I think rightly, pledge—has not been honoured fully and completely in the sense which the then Prime Minister indicated. I want to limit that statement in some degree. It was honoured as from August, 1918, to
the end of December, 1920, and I believe I am right in saying that a sum of money has been paid by the University Grants Committee to the Welsh University authorities covering the period from August, 1918, to the 31st December, 1920; but since the 31st December, 1920, that pledge has been wholly and completely ignored, in so far as it refers to private benefactions. That promise made in August, 1918, was again confirmed in March, 1919, and a claim was presented at an interview in 1922 by a deputation which waited upon the University Grants Committee. The answer given on that occasion was this—I will quote only a very short relevant passage:
The Committee could give no guarantee that these amounts would rank for equivalent grant, but it would be an advantage if the University sent in a full statement of all gifts and benefactions received since 31st December, 1920.
As a matter of fact, the University authorities have presented, in pursuance of that suggestion, their statement of claim each year, for 1921, 1922, 1923, again in 1924, and again in 1925 in respect of 1924. My point, therefore, is this, that the pledge, as made by the then Prime Minister, covering the prospective five years, has not been honoured in respect of the period from the end of 1920. I do not want to be unfair to or unreasonable with my right hon. Friend. I admit quite frankly that there has been a period of financial stringency since this promise was made; I admit that, on that account, not only the Welsh University authorities, but authorities all over the country, have similarly had to curtail, their demands upon the Treasury; I admit, further, that the total sum which the Welsh University authorities estimate as being mow due to them, which will amount at the end of June to about £30,000, in respect of this pledge, is a big sum to ask the Treasury to give right off, but just as it is a big sum for the Treasury to find, so it is a big sum, I submit, for the Welsh University authorities to do without. It cuts both ways, and, therefore, I want to put to the representative of the Treasury to-night this very important consideration. When this pledge was made, supreme efforts were made naturally, by the University authorities to get various donors who were charitably disposed to present sums of money to the Welsh University authorities.
Let me give a case in point. There what is known as the Radcliffe benefaction which amounted, I think, to some £50,0000. Such sums as that were given on the understanding that they would rank for this grant, which was a pledge, as we understood it, given by the then Prime Minister in 1918. What has been the result? It has not ranked for grant. A grant has not been given, and the consequence has been—I say it regretfully—that the reservoir of charity, which would have been available to the Welsh authorities, has been in a large measure limited by the knowledge that gifts such as these will not, in future, rank for these special grants from the Treasury This means loss of confidence and trust. Add to that, that the Welsh authorities have in the past received substantial grants from our merchant princes in South Wales and elsewhere. There is great trade depression in South Wales, and, naturally, the resources from which private gifts and otherwise have been made have been very largely dried up. Therefore, we have suffered in two ways. We have not been able to get all the university grants, nor can we now anticipate, with some measure of confidence, future grants from charitably-disposed donors. I do not, as I said, want to be unreasonable, but might I make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, on my own authority and without reference to any other authority?£30,000 in one year is a good deal to expect. Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that the payment of this sum shall be given to the Welsh authorities, and distributed over a number of years to make it easier for the Treasury? That would safeguard the Welsh authorities from this very serious loss. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in coming here to listen to what I have to say.

Mr. E. EVANS: May I reinforce what my hon. Friend has just said. I realise that nothing is likely to have been said by the Prime Minister, or the right hon. Gentleman, either in 1918 or in 1920 which would justify us in expecting this grant to the Welsh University to be given in perpetuity. I do not think that the University is unreasonable in saying that when the Government- started to give this pound-for-pound grant in 1918, it was
inflicting a hardship upon the University suddenly to withdraw it in 1920, two years later, and that, at least, the University may not expect some different treatment.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): The arrangement made with the Welsh Universities in 1918 was terminated after due notice. The hon. Gentleman who has raised this point seems to be under a misunderstanding as to what was exactly the promise of the then Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman spoke as if there were a guarantee from the Treasury that for five years a pound-to-pound grant would be given. There was no five years' condition as to public funds. The five years' condition clearly applied to private benefactions.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Exactly; that is what I mean.

Mr. GUINNESS: The Prime Minister was asked, what is the time limit of any such benefactions, and the Prime Minister said: "I suggest five years." There was no promise of any kind from the Government that they would go on giving pound for pound grants. They said that they would not give a pound for pound grant for any benefactions which were not guaranteed for five years. The hon. Member mentioned the Radcliffe gift. That gift was made in 1923 and it could not have ranked for grant for £50,000 because it was distinctly laid down that these capital benefactions were only to rank on their interest. The Radcliffe gift was nearly two years after notice had been given that this arrangement had to come to an end. Under the 1918 undertaking of the Prime Minister the grants to the Welsh Universities went up very rapidly. They went up from £36,500 that year to;£52,000 the following year, and in 1920–21 they went up to £95,000. Then came the Geddes Committee and the University grants were cut down by £300,000 a year. The Committee sent a letter to the Universities and explained that their resources had been decreased, and that it followed that the Committee would not be in a position to recommend any additions to the present annual grants-in-aid until the state of the public finances permitted His Majesty's Government to reconsider the position. So there can be no misunderstanding on the part of the benefactors that their grants were going to earn the pound for pound equivalent.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: But the University authorities have carried out their bargain absolutely and fully.

Mr. GUINNESS: So did the State. The State said they would give pound for pound, with no definite term, for any benefactions guaranteed for five years. They gave notice that they would have to bring that to an end, and therefore I am afraid it is impossible to re-open it, because when that pledge was given the whole system was different, there was only less than half-a-million given to all the Universities together. Since then the public assistance has greatly increased, and the then Prime Minister said in 1918 that whatever was done for Wales would have to be done for the rest of the country. I hope that. Wales will share in the advantage of the increased grant, but the revival in its full application of the pound-forpound grant beyond what the University Grants Committee have still observed, the pound-for-pound equivalent of rates found by local authorities, would be
absolutely inconsistent with the new system which was set up since 1918, under which Parliament votes a lump sum, and entrusts the allocation to the University Grants Committee. It is clearly impossible, as that Committee has only a definite sum to deal with, that they should be faced with demands which they could not measure, and if they were called upon to find pound for pound throughout the country it would clearly be impossible for them to work to a fixed figure. But really Wales is very well off. Their University is getting £95,000 a year—more than Oxford, more than Cambridge, half as much again as Liverpool, and half as much again as London. They are getting 45.8 per cent. of their total resources out of Imperial funds, whereas the average percentage in England is only 34.7, and in Scotland 34.1.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.